Election saturation

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message ink.net...
snip
but the most immediate effect will be to drive out all of the
good people who remain as FSS becomes one big call center somewhere in
Georgia. Of course, those people are disappearing over time anyway so I'm
not so convinced anything we do at this point is going to make a difference
anyway.

This already happened when the AFSS system was implemented in the
early 90s. Prior to that, you could go into a FSS office in, say,
Burley, Idaho on a bad weather day, and get a comprehesive briefing
from a local FSS expert that was familiar with the local terrain and
weather patterns. With the advent of approximately 1 AFSS for each
state (with the exception of Alaska), much of that expertise
disappeared and, more often than not, a briefing turned into a canned
reading of a standard report, from a specialist that could be located
in a windowless room, hundreds of miles away.

As it stands now, it wouldn't make any difference to me if all of
the AFSS were consolidated into a giant call center in Georgia (the
state, not the republic :-)). The briefing I get would be the same
either way.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Jay Honeck wrote:

You know it's election season when...


I called Fort Dodge Flight Service today for a briefing. The FSS briefer
asked for my credit card number!

Taken aback, I laughed and asked if they took "Discover." He laughed, but
quite seriously said "That's what it will be like if they out-source us..."

"They" meaning, I suspect, the Bush Administration?

I'll be really glad when this election is behind us.

FSS won't be outsourced. What you'll see is a giant consolidation into
a very few or even one FSS, probably into the middle of the country,
although it doesn't really matter where.

John Galban wrote:

With the advent of approximately 1 AFSS for each
state (with the exception of Alaska), much of that expertise
disappeared and, more often than not, a briefing turned into a canned
reading of a standard report, from a specialist that could be located
in a windowless room, hundreds of miles away.

This is 100% the fault of the lawyers. The FAA and thus the taxpayers,
cannot afford to have briefers with local knoweledge. Some guy that
knows you should fly over this mountain pass but not that one when the
weather goes to hell is a luxury that the lawyers do not allow the FAA
to have. FSS does not ever suggest anything helpful to you anymore,
they simply read you the weather and you are forced to make your own
interpretation. Because of the lawyers.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I called Fort Dodge Flight Service today for a briefing. The FSS
briefer asked for my credit card number!


Jay,

What's the rest of the story? Were they really charging you for the briefing? Incredible!

Mike

"Newps" wrote in message
...

This is 100% the fault of the lawyers. The FAA and thus the taxpayers,

I wonder how they manage in Alaska. I'm sure plenty of the planes that go
into mountainsides up there received briefings that didn't say, "Don't fly
there today." Alaskans might not sue but I'm sure the families of all the
tourists who go up there are less understanding.

-cwk.

"Mike Adams" wrote in message
news:0Hldd.32144$bk1.6067@fed1read05...
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I called Fort Dodge Flight Service today for a briefing. The FSS
briefer asked for my credit card number!


Jay,

What's the rest of the story? Were they really charging you for the
briefing? Incredible!

Mike
Get a life Mike! he was only kidding

What's the rest of the story? Were they really charging you for the
briefing? Incredible!

He was only joking. But it *did* rock me back for a second...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:30:40 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
et::


Most likely, the FSS personnel would be located in India (or some
other 3rd world country) like AT&T's tech-support staff. Hey, it's
about profitability not safety, right? :-(

Yesterday, I was signing up for DSL with SBC and asked the tech guy
where he was. "India" was the response.
Isn't there some American on welfare that could do that job from home?

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message ink.net...

I wonder how they manage in Alaska. I'm sure plenty of the planes that go
into mountainsides up there received briefings that didn't say, "Don't fly
there today." Alaskans might not sue but I'm sure the families of all the
tourists who go up there are less understanding.

You touched on another sore spot I have with current AFSS system.
"VFR not recommended". After the FSS were consolidated in Arizona, I
started getting "VFR not recommended" statements quite often on
flights between Phoenix and Southern New Mexico (I average one or two
a month). On one flight, the vis was reported in excess of 20 miles
with an overcast layer 2,000 ft. above my proposed cruising altitude.
The briefer gave me a VNR. When I asked for the basis for this
recommendation, he told me that it was their policy to say VNR anytime
there was mountain obscuration, even if it would not affect the
planned flight. In my case, there was a single 10,000 ft. peak that
might be obscured, south of my route. I later talked to the
supervisor who comfirmed that this was their policy and it was in
place to cover their butts. I asked him if he'd ever heard of the boy
who cried "wolf". He didn't have an answer for that.

I haven't seen a benefit to talking to a live briefer in a long
time. The exception being the specialists in Fligh****ch. They're
still willing to offer meaningful interpretations of the local weather
situation. I wonder how long that will last.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
You touched on another sore spot I have with current AFSS system.
"VFR not recommended". After the FSS were consolidated in Arizona, I
started getting "VFR not recommended" statements quite often on
flights between Phoenix and Southern New Mexico (I average one or two
a month). On one flight, the vis was reported in excess of 20 miles
with an overcast layer 2,000 ft. above my proposed cruising altitude.
The briefer gave me a VNR. When I asked for the basis for this
recommendation, he told me that it was their policy to say VNR anytime
there was mountain obscuration, even if it would not affect the
planned flight. In my case, there was a single 10,000 ft. peak that
might be obscured, south of my route. I later talked to the
supervisor who comfirmed that this was their policy and it was in
place to cover their butts. I asked him if he'd ever heard of the boy
who cried "wolf". He didn't have an answer for that.

I haven't seen a benefit to talking to a live briefer in a long
time. The exception being the specialists in Fligh****ch. They're
still willing to offer meaningful interpretations of the local weather
situation. I wonder how long that will last.

Interesting observations. I too was recently told "VFR not recommended" in
circumstances that didn't call for it. I was flying from BED west to 7B2.
The sky was clear at BED, but the briefer said there was a thin broken layer
to the west at around 2200', and as low as 1900' at CEF (which is near 7B2;
7B2 itself has no weather reporting). Although the clouds were expected to
rise and dissipate shortly (morning, stable air, no front coming through),
and the readings were already almost an hour old, the briefer recommended
against VFR flight. It's true that there are some hills at around 1400' near
7B2 so I wouldn't want to scud-run there if the clouds were really at 1900'
(Class E, sparsely populated terrain) . But I saw no reason not to head over
there and then turn back (or get a pop-up clearance) in the unlikely event
that the clouds were too low.

On the way, I radioed Flight Watch. They still had the same data--now more
than an hour old--and they asked me my intentions. I told them I'd stay
under the clouds and see how things looked as I got further west. They said
"OK, but just for the record, VFR is not recommended". (When I got there,
the clouds were 2400' scattered--no problem at all.)

--Gary