Oshkosh Pink Shirts

Jay Honeck said:
Before the predictable cries of "blame the politicians", answer me this: What's stopping these people from REALLY volunteering? You know, like the thousands of other people who make Oshkosh work? I suppose they're too good for that, eh?
Click to expand...

Not at all-- the fact is that controllers, both active duty and retired, have been offering to volunteer their services at OSH for decades and continue to do so. Unfortunately, the event insurance that covers other volunteers at the convention has an exclusion with regard to ATC operations-- and, so far, insurers have been unwilling to waive that exclusion. Neither EAA nor the individuals involved can afford the exposure they'd have without a waiver to that exclusion.
 
flibmeister said:
Not at all-- the fact is that controllers, both active duty and retired, have been offering to volunteer their services at OSH for decades and continue to do so. Unfortunately, the event insurance that covers other volunteers at the convention has an exclusion with regard to ATC operations-- and, so far, insurers have been unwilling to waive that exclusion. Neither EAA nor the individuals involved can afford the exposure they'd have without a waiver to that exclusion.
Click to expand...

Cite?

Not that I don't believe it -- insurance rules are almost as crazy as government rules (and are often driven by the same things) -- but this sounds a bit too in line with the union "no volunteers allowed" stance mentioned upstream in this thread.

When there are so many "rules" banning one specialized group from volunteering, I start to get suspicious. Call me cynical. :rolleyes:
 
Jay Honeck said:
When there are so many "rules" banning one specialized group from volunteering, I start to get suspicious. Call me cynical. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I suspect that other professional services like medical and legal services are excluded as well.
 
steingar said:
This is a really unfortunate turn of events. The FAA has invented a new and likely permanent tax, and has bypassed Congress, the rightful taxing authority, to do so. I am surprised the EAA isn't working through their Representatives and Senators to nip this in the bud. It is patently illegal.
Click to expand...

At work I've often been accused of being bull-headed. I'll admit I like to push the limit when stupid people do stupid things ... be it my boss, my co-workers or even my customers (within reason).

All that said, why doesn't the EAA just say "NO!". The EAA should simply state that they expect the convention to have X number of aircraft movements at the airport over the duration of the event. If the FAA believes safety will be enhanced by increasing controllers, so be it. If they want to state that they, the FAA, believes that controllers are not warranted, let them say that ... I dare them to.

Hold a gun to the FAAs head. Tell them, "Look, you think the government doesn't need to increase the number of controllers at OSH for the duration of the event, that is your call." Have the convention and let the FAA worry about the tower ... it has NOTHING to do with scheduling and running the convention.

What is the FAA going to do, close the airport?

The EAA should tell the FAA to do as they please. If they need to scratch the air shows, so be it ... push the limit and see what the morons at the FAA do.

JB1842 said:
I still think that a private organization should pay for the extra work being done by the government that is to the benefit of the private organization.
Click to expand...

This is the agencies responsibility. They are not doing it for the private organization, they are doing it because they charge me money every time I fly and because it is their responsibility. I simply don't understand this argument.

kyleb said:
The issue comes back to the FAA's mission. If the agency is supposed to promote aviation safety, staffing and attending Osh should be an FAA function.

This is clearly a political move to establish a precedent for user fees and to stick it to "small" GA, which we all know is a huge security threat promulgated by a bunch of old, wealthy, white guys.
Click to expand...

+1, Bingo, Gold Star ... the EAA CANNOT cave to this. As you say, the whole reason for the agency is to promote safety. I say we (yes, it is my organization) have the airshow (maybe we call it a fly in) and let the FAA decide to do what it wants to do. If the EAA just ignores the FAA and threatens to have the show, what will the FAA do. The only thing I think they could do is refuse to issue permits for the airshow.

If the EAA has to take a serious punch in the face from a hosed up AirVenture for one year, so be it. We need to think in the long term, not the short term.
 
weirdjim said:
Would somebody please get this guy a lifetime supply of rose-colored glasses?

And tell h im I've got a bridge for sale ...

Jim
Click to expand...

What type of tax return does 'Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc' file ?
 
Brad Z said:
Jay, I've been following you and your posts here, and on the News groups, since the 90s. I've never met you personally. I was hoping to make it to OSH this year and stop in on your Weds night gathering. After this last comment, I think I may respectfully pass.
Click to expand...

Jay is like my favorite uncle after a few cans of beer. Really fun to be around, says what he thinks, doesn't mind bit@$ing about the stupid things he sees and sometimes, just sometimes, speaks before he thinks it all the way through.

Then again, I'm just like my favorite uncle that way too, so it doesn't bother me too much. I do try to be a bit more cautious on-line than I am over a beer, and that is where Jay and I differ a bit.

You really should stop by HOPS. Think of it as a way to get even with Jay. Stop by, drink his beer, eat his food and tell him what you think. I'll bet real money that you end up liking him ... he's a hoot.

I can just see Jay as an 80 year old geezer sitting on the porch of an airport barking at the whipper-snappers about what it was like in the day and it makes me want to laugh. Keep that picture in mind and he's easy to understand.

PS - Jay, I'll share the liars bench with you at the airport (if there is still are such thing) in 2050 or so and even buy you a beer.
 
I'm surprised Jay didn't know the controllers were paid.

As far as FAA goes, I pushed hard with various people and media outlets along with many others to get them a real budget instead of never-ending continuing resolutions.

They have turned around and stabbed everyone who supported that in the back.
 
Gentelmen here is the letter that went out yesterday

from the EAA forums

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

IMHO this sets a precedence that will haunt our industry for a very long time. they found a cash cow, they will milk her to the end of time. user fees, you bet, they will chip away at your wallet until you are paying for every service you get. Landing fees at every tower controlled airport? you watch. call for weather? what's your N number You wait.

You've sat on your a$$ for so long and said nothing, they you will not do any thing meaningful now.

So get out your wallet and stand by rich boy with your toys.
 
Tom-D said:
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),

I did. Four times. Using "social media" before there was such a thing. Went to Oshkosh with the 3000+ votes I had collected using the EAA's convoluted "by chapter" documents. Got patted on the head and then blown away with the 50,000 or so proxy votes "the association" holds.

or
3.) Agree upon the candidates and Vote. Get Every Member You Know to Vote.

So long as the proxy system is alive and well and the association holds all the cards, go out and fart into a whirlwind for all the good it will do you. Trust me. Four times.


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

Five characters.

Jim
 
Jay Honeck said:
Cite?

Not that I don't believe it -- insurance rules are almost as crazy as government rules (and are often driven by the same things) -- but this sounds a bit too in line with the union "no volunteers allowed" stance mentioned upstream in this thread.
Click to expand...

I've personally been party to many attempts to find insurance for volunteer tower ops at air shows, going as far back as the early '80s, when the FAA refused EAA's request to establish a temporary tower at Fond du Lac. I was an experienced Oshkosh controller at the time, and told Tom that if he could provide the equipment and insurance, I could provide the volunteer controllers. When EAA was unable to secure insurance, the FAA reversed their position and started staffing the temporary tower at Fond du Lac.

These days, I'm the Air Ops guy for the Copperstate Fly-In. When the FAA notified me a few months ago that they wouldn't provide controllers for this year's event unless we signed a reimbursable agreement (and paid in advance), I investigated our options. I have more than enough current and retired FAA controllers willing to work the event on their own time-- but I can't find a single event insurance company that will waive the ATC ops exclusion, at any price.

I could cite another half dozen examples from my personal experience, at air shows where I've been air boss-- all attempts to find insurance to cover ATC ops have been fruitless. If the insurance companies won't cover these smaller shows, I find it highly doubtful they'd cover the big one.

For the record, I'm no fan of NATCA (the controller's union), I was never a member and have battled with them on many occasions, both in my FAA days and with regard to my air show ops. But your charge that the union has a "no volunteers allowed" stance is baseless. It's the FAA that has such a policy, primarily because (I'm told) federal law requires that controllers must be in pay status to be protected by the federal liability umbrella. The union has taken no position on the issue, since the question is made moot by the FAA policy.

There's only one villain here, and that's the FAA. I know many controllers, and none of them agree with the FAA stance on this. BTW, Oshkosh controllers don't get paid overtime, unless they work more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. The FAA charges event organizers OT rates to cover the cost of replacing the OSH controllers at their home facility during their absence. Since there's no extra pay involved, there's certainly no case to say they're in it for the money. If that were the motivation, they'd be better off letting somebody else go, so they can stay home and be one of the controllers to collect the overtime. There are a few controllers that go to OSH because they like to party-- but most of the pink shirts you'll see are being worn by people who are there just because they love airplanes.
 
Jay Honeck said:
=
Surely some of these fine people would volunteer their experience and service at OSH? Oh, wait -- I will bet that their union has made THAT "illegal", too.
Click to expand...

Jay, you're talking about things you know nothing about. It has SQUAT to do with the UNION either PATCO or NATCA. It is illegal for federal employees to go around doing some stuff for free and getting paid for others. It's an immense conflict of interest and contrary to the law across the government not just the FAA and ATC.
 
iflyforfun said:
At work I've often been accused of being bull-headed. I'll admit I like to push the limit when stupid people do stupid things ... be it my boss, my co-workers or even my customers (within reason).

All that said, why doesn't the EAA just say "NO!". The EAA should simply state that they expect the convention to have X number of aircraft movements at the airport over the duration of the event. If the FAA believes safety will be enhanced by increasing controllers, so be it. If they want to state that they, the FAA, believes that controllers are not warranted, let them say that ... I dare them to.

Hold a gun to the FAAs head. Tell them, "Look, you think the government doesn't need to increase the number of controllers at OSH for the duration of the event, that is your call." Have the convention and let the FAA worry about the tower ... it has NOTHING to do with scheduling and running the convention.

What is the FAA going to do, close the airport?

The EAA should tell the FAA to do as they please. If they need to scratch the air shows, so be it ... push the limit and see what the morons at the FAA do.



This is the agencies responsibility. They are not doing it for the private organization, they are doing it because they charge me money every time I fly and because it is their responsibility. I simply don't understand this argument.



+1, Bingo, Gold Star ... the EAA CANNOT cave to this. As you say, the whole reason for the agency is to promote safety. I say we (yes, it is my organization) have the airshow (maybe we call it a fly in) and let the FAA decide to do what it wants to do. If the EAA just ignores the FAA and threatens to have the show, what will the FAA do. The only thing I think they could do is refuse to issue permits for the airshow.

If the EAA has to take a serious punch in the face from a hosed up AirVenture for one year, so be it. We need to think in the long term, not the short term.
Click to expand...

The big stick that the FAA holds is the spacing waiver. Without the spacing waiver the air ops at Osh can't legally happen. Can you imagine trying to land 3 or 4 thousand planes a day at the start and end of the show using normal spacing requirements? That is why EAA had to come to some sort of a agreement. I think it sucks but it is what it is.
 
flyingron said:
Jay, you're talking about things you know nothing about. It has SQUAT to do with the UNION either PATCO or NATCA. It is illegal for federal employees to go around doing some stuff for free and getting paid for others. It's an immense conflict of interest and contrary to the law across the government not just the FAA and ATC.
Click to expand...

The requirement for a federal employee to get paid is limited to acting in their official capacity. Our local locksmith is a contracting specialist for the feds, when he replaces a deadbolt in his approved side-business, he doesn't have to get paid his fed goverment rate, but he is not acting in his official capacity either and his work is not covered by FTRA but his CGLI.
 
Last edited:
As I stated in my initial post, the big risk to volunteer controllers is the liability risk. There may also be restrictions in their job description that prevents them from working as a controller outside of their official job.

Same might apply to the volunteer docs- are they licensed to practice in Wisconsin? Are they credentialled and privileged by a medical facility? Who provides their medical malpractice insurance? Except for performing measures to save life, limb, or sight under Good Samaritan provisions, any further diagnosis or treatment might incur a huge liability risk.

Who protects a volunteer controller? The EAA would have insurance, but a plaintiff would go after the EAA as well as the individual. The plaintiff could claim that the individual was not trained, did not have appropriate oversight, etc. The FAA could say the controller was moonlighting and had accepted compensation (dorm room, food, clothing), outside the limits of the job provisions.

Result- lengthy and expensive personal trial (after emptying any personal umbrella policy they would then go after any personal assets like house, etc), controller might be found in job violation for working outside of their federal job, and get sanctioned or even terminated.

This is one big reason why volunteer controllers wouldn't or shouldn't work at OSH.
 
iflyforfun said:
Jay is like my favorite uncle after a few cans of beer. Really fun to be around, says what he thinks, doesn't mind bit@$ing about the stupid things he sees and sometimes, just sometimes, speaks before he thinks it all the way through.

Then again, I'm just like my favorite uncle that way too, so it doesn't bother me too much. I do try to be a bit more cautious on-line than I am over a beer, and that is where Jay and I differ a bit.

You really should stop by HOPS. Think of it as a way to get even with Jay. Stop by, drink his beer, eat his food and tell him what you think. I'll bet real money that you end up liking him ... he's a hoot.

I can just see Jay as an 80 year old geezer sitting on the porch of an airport barking at the whipper-snappers about what it was like in the day and it makes me want to laugh. Keep that picture in mind and he's easy to understand.

PS - Jay, I'll share the liars bench with you at the airport (if there is still are such thing) in 2050 or so and even buy you a beer.
Click to expand...

Get off my lawn! :D
 
denverpilot said:
I'm surprised Jay didn't know the controllers were paid.
Click to expand...

Gee, it must be that three-decade lie the pink shirts have promulgated on us, about how they all "volunteered" and "competed" to work at Airventure?

All they "volunteered" for was to find a slick way to get paid overtime to attend Airventure. Nice.

I guess I should have known that a "civil servant" would never do anything out of charity?
 
flyingron said:
Jay, you're talking about things you know nothing about. It has SQUAT to do with the UNION either PATCO or NATCA. It is illegal for federal employees to go around doing some stuff for free and getting paid for others. It's an immense conflict of interest and contrary to the law across the government not just the FAA and ATC.
Click to expand...

How...convenient. For the gummint employees. :rolleyes:
 
AcroBoy said:
This is one big reason why volunteer controllers wouldn't or shouldn't work at OSH.
Click to expand...

You know, the only reason this sort of fear of litigation has paralyzed our society is because we have allowed it to happen. And by we, I mean you. And you.

And you, too.

I refuse to acknowledge or participate in this group hysteria. Which is why I still let strangers use my vehicles when they stay at my hotel, and sell hotel packages that include skydiving. If you want to sue me, you'll have to stand in line.

I refuse to be paranoid. Life is too effing short.
 
jtheune said:
The big stick that the FAA holds is the spacing waiver. Without the spacing waiver the air ops at Osh can't legally happen. Can you imagine trying to land 3 or 4 thousand planes a day at the start and end of the show using normal spacing requirements? That is why EAA had to come to some sort of a agreement. I think it sucks but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

You know what? I like the idea of telling the FAA and their 35 page NOTAM to just stay home.

I will still fly in to OSH.

Does anyone know what year the FAA instituted the waiver and FISK approach?
 
flibmeister said:
I've personally been party to many attempts to find insurance for volunteer tower ops at air shows, going as far back as the early '80s, when the FAA refused EAA's request to establish a temporary tower at Fond du Lac. I was an experienced Oshkosh controller at the time, and told Tom that if he could provide the equipment and insurance, I could provide the volunteer controllers. When EAA was unable to secure insurance, the FAA reversed their position and started staffing the temporary tower at Fond du Lac.

These days, I'm the Air Ops guy for the Copperstate Fly-In. When the FAA notified me a few months ago that they wouldn't provide controllers for this year's event unless we signed a reimbursable agreement (and paid in advance), I investigated our options. I have more than enough current and retired FAA controllers willing to work the event on their own time-- but I can't find a single event insurance company that will waive the ATC ops exclusion, at any price.

I could cite another half dozen examples from my personal experience, at air shows where I've been air boss-- all attempts to find insurance to cover ATC ops have been fruitless. If the insurance companies won't cover these smaller shows, I find it highly doubtful they'd cover the big one.

For the record, I'm no fan of NATCA (the controller's union), I was never a member and have battled with them on many occasions, both in my FAA days and with regard to my air show ops. But your charge that the union has a "no volunteers allowed" stance is baseless. It's the FAA that has such a policy, primarily because (I'm told) federal law requires that controllers must be in pay status to be protected by the federal liability umbrella. The union has taken no position on the issue, since the question is made moot by the FAA policy.

There's only one villain here, and that's the FAA. I know many controllers, and none of them agree with the FAA stance on this. BTW, Oshkosh controllers don't get paid overtime, unless they work more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. The FAA charges event organizers OT rates to cover the cost of replacing the OSH controllers at their home facility during their absence. Since there's no extra pay involved, there's certainly no case to say they're in it for the money. If that were the motivation, they'd be better off letting somebody else go, so they can stay home and be one of the controllers to collect the overtime. There are a few controllers that go to OSH because they like to party-- but most of the pink shirts you'll see are being worn by people who are there just because they love airplanes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in. I'm glad to hear that controllers are opposed to the FAA's anti-GA stance. And I'm sure they are adamantly opposed to the federal "no-volunteer" rule, because government workers are all about getting the job done, and not merely about feathering their own nest.

Hello? Are you even listening to yourself? Government workers have written rules banning government workers from volunteering! Golly, is ANYONE surprised?

No one will insure them? Well, then, I guess we don't need them, if they are such terrible risks. Think about what it says about the perceived competence of air traffic controllers if no one will insure them.

How about this: Let's see the union boys get off their pansy asses, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. Federal unions seem to have plenty of clout when it comes to other things -- just TRY to fire a member -- how about a letter from the union to every Congress critter, outlining what BS it is for the FAA to be extorting EAA for $400K?

How about the head of the controller's union hitting all the news shows, protesting what's happening? This person is making six figures -- put him on the dog-&-pony talk shows, articulating how the FAA is charging pilots fuel tax AND a user fees.

Not their job? They have bigger fish to fry? I'm sure there are a thousand reasons why the controllers will remain silent about this mess. Apathy is #1.
 
Tom-D said:
Gentelmen here is the letter that went out yesterday

from the EAA forums

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

IMHO this sets a precedence that will haunt our industry for a very long time. they found a cash cow, they will milk her to the end of time. user fees, you bet, they will chip away at your wallet until you are paying for every service you get. Landing fees at every tower controlled airport? you watch. call for weather? what's your N number You wait.

You've sat on your a$$ for so long and said nothing, they you will not do any thing meaningful now.

So get out your wallet and stand by rich boy with your toys.
Click to expand...

Great letter! You are 100%, dead-nuts, stone-cold RIGHT.
 
Jay Honeck said:
You know what? I like the idea of telling the FAA and their 35 page NOTAM to just stay home.

I will still fly in to OSH.
Click to expand...

All you would hear is 'stay clear of class D', if you entered the airport grounds by foot, you would find maybe a hundred aircraft or so.

So full of win !
 
weilke said:
All you would hear is 'stay clear of class D', if you entered the airport grounds by foot, you would find maybe a hundred aircraft or so.

So full of win !
Click to expand...

"Stay clear of Class D"? Really?

I think not.

Would it be a smaller Airventure? No doubt. Would it be worth it, in the long run?

Yep.

This is a TERRIBLE precedent to set. We will never hear the end of user's fees now.
 
Jay Honeck said:
"Stay clear of Class D"? Really?

I think not.
Click to expand...

The class D controllers job is to sequence aircraft for landing on the runway(s) he has at his disposal. Without pink-shirts on the ground, he has neither the dots nor the parallel taxiway at his disposal. He can land aircraft in whatever minimum spacing allowed under the order that governs his job. Once he has x number of planes lined up to land, anyone else will just be told to stand-by.
 
weilke said:
The class D controllers job is to sequence aircraft for landing on the runway(s) he has at his disposal. Without pink-shirts on the ground, he has neither the dots nor the parallel taxiway at his disposal. He can land aircraft in whatever minimum spacing allowed under the order that governs his job. Once he has x number of planes lined up to land, anyone else will just be told to stand-by.
Click to expand...

Which is not he same as stay clear of the delta. He may put you in a hold until you run out of fuel but he can't tell you you can't land.
 
weilke said:
The class D controllers job is to sequence aircraft for landing on the runway(s) he has at his disposal. Without pink-shirts on the ground, he has neither the dots nor the parallel taxiway at his disposal. He can land aircraft in whatever minimum spacing allowed under the order that governs his job. Once he has x number of planes lined up to land, anyone else will just be told to stand-by.
Click to expand...

There's a recording of that in the early 70s at OSH, right? They've been there.
 
jtheune said:
Which is not he same as stay clear of the delta. He may put you in a hold until you run out of fuel but he can't tell you you can't land.
Click to expand...

This is from JO7110.65U (I believe that is the correct order for ATC operations, someone correct me if it is not):

3−1−13. ESTABLISHING TWO−WAY
COMMUNICATIONS
Pilots are required to establish two-way radio
communications before entering the Class D
airspace. If the controller responds to a radio call
with, “(a/c call sign) standby,” radio communications
have been established and the pilot can enter the
Class D airspace. If workload or traffic conditions
prevent immediate provision of Class D services,
inform the pilot to remain outside the Class D
airspace until conditions permit the services to be
provided.

So yes, if he already has his airspace buzzing with aircraft circling the field and trying to get onto the runway, he CAN tell you 'stay clear of class D'. Once he has told that to 20 aircraft and he actually managed to clear his airspace, he will ask 'any aircraft standing by for Wittman' which will cause 100 mikes to be keyed at the same fraction of a second causing nothing but a shriek.

Like it or not, we need the FAA to run AirVenture. I dont believe they should double-dip for their expenses, but without out them, the event as we know it wont happen.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Is that when they started the FISK approach?
Click to expand...

No. Listen for the Red Taildragger on that tape. That was 4190V, the 170 I flew at the time. That was the goldurndest gaggle of aluminum I've ever been before or since.

They started off the next year with some rammycackle thing involving FondDuLac, then started the Ripon approach and it morphed itself into Fisk a few years later when they went to the Poberezny Two-Step from Ripon to Fisk.

Jim
 
N2124v said:
This is from the EAA website. It sounds to me like the EAA really did the only viable option. Now, if I ran the EAA I would be looking for a new place to hold Airventure outside of controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

Man, there are so many planes going to airventure that, even with 80 professional controllers working multiple frequencies and coordinating efforts, communication is one way affair with controllers saying things and spotters verifying wing waggles.

It would be, quite simply, impossible to put on an event of that scale without that level of ATC. So EAA needs the FAA. Period.

For people who want to go to smaller events and not pay the FAA to double dip, fine. Do that. There are dozens of smaller events to choose from. There is no need to make AirVenture one of them. Without 40 acres of airplane camping, plus warbird, plus antiques, plus ultralights, plus seaplane, plus nine airshows, plus 40 acres of RV camping the show wouldn't be what it is. And what it is requires ATC.

For me, I'll go out of my way to run mogas that week so I only have to pay the FAA once. :yes: I'll also support the EAA's efforts to solve the problem in the long term and not vote for a certain party that holds our country hostage in congress - instead of blaming the controllers themselves. :)
 
Last edited:
Look for a state that has sufficient political sway to make the FAA's life difficult. Until the current administration is gone, anything that smacks of freedom or success will be under attack.
 
N2124v said:
Look for a state that has sufficient political sway to make the FAA's life difficult. Until the current administration is gone, anything that smacks of freedom or success will be under attack.
Click to expand...

EAA needs an abandoned air base. There is one North of here (in Texas) that is completely uncontrolled, and has an 11,000' runway. It would be perfect for Airventure.

Except that in July, it would be like camping on the surface of Mercury. :lol:
 
Sorry, ain't happening. Better chance of negotiating a better deal through congress for the existing location.

N2124v said:
Look for a state that has sufficient political sway to make the FAA's life difficult. Until the current administration is gone, anything that smacks of freedom or success will be under attack.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top