NATCA Going Down in Flames

Well, yes and no.
Yes for some like me; no for some like Emily.

Well, it's a bit more than that. Flying in the DC area without talking
to anyone is hard. (at least doing it more than once is hard!). Flying
in weather without talking to ATC can be hard in many areas of the
country where it would be easy VFR, and when that area doesn't have much
VFR, that "adds value" to ATC services. (Many areas like that don't
have much spam can IFR either). And although you may be able to "fly"
without talking to anyone, this doesn't help if you can't get where
you're going without them.

It's not just Emily (although I will say she paints a bleaker picture
than I think is warranted).

And if a privatized ATC starts charging for services, and finds that
they are not making enough money because spam cans demure, then it is
not out of the question that the FAA will require, somehow, that spam
cans procure more ATC services.

All speculation, but intertwined. We are lucky to have the system we
have, but we need to be vigliant that it doesn't get sold, piece by
piece, like the DC area did, as each of us who is not directly affected,
poo poohs the idea that it could come to reach us.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.

There is a difference between your hotel (a privately run enterprise for
which there is lots of competition) and the FAA, a government lawmaking
entity, for which there is no alternative but sneakers. If =you= decide
that your operation works better with a dress code, you find out whether
this is true or not in your monthly profit reports. You then have a
motivation to change things if you are wrong. This ultimately leads to
better service to your clients, which is why you are in business.

However, if the =FAA= decides that their operation works better with a
dress code, then they won't find out from any kind of "profit" report,
because their customers can't go anywhere else but away, and there is
nothing useful to compare it with. If the FAA's customers go "away",
and the FAA's "profit" decreases, I doubt the FAA would be motivated to
change.

Assuming that the purpose of the FAA is safety, then to the extent that
the dress code =actually= improves safety, it will be apparant in the
NASA reports. But since there is no equivalent to the profit motive,
this is unlikely to be a useful feedback loop.

That's the difference.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.


And who can argue with the FAA's historically impeccable judgment?

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
And, if the FAA thinks their operations are more professional by
requiring a minimum dress code from their employees, so be it.

There is a difference between your hotel (a privately run enterprise for
which there is lots of competition) and the FAA, a government lawmaking
entity, for which there is no alternative but sneakers. If =you= decide
that your operation works better with a dress code, you find out whether
this is true or not in your monthly profit reports. You then have a
motivation to change things if you are wrong. This ultimately leads to
better service to your clients, which is why you are in business.

However, if the =FAA= decides that their operation works better with a
dress code, then they won't find out from any kind of "profit" report,
because their customers can't go anywhere else but away, and there is
nothing useful to compare it with. If the FAA's customers go "away", and
the FAA's "profit" decreases, I doubt the FAA would be motivated to
change.

Assuming that the purpose of the FAA is safety, then to the extent that
the dress code =actually= improves safety, it will be apparant in the NASA
reports. But since there is no equivalent to the profit motive, this is
unlikely to be a useful feedback loop.

That's the difference.

That's not the difference. Management determines the rules within the
limits of the law and employees either follow, leave or face possible
termination. Management does not have a requirement to provide reasons.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 6 Sep 2006 06:52:41 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Now, of course, would I *prefer* to use ATC? Sure! We use VFR flight
following on virtually every flight, and we enjoy visiting big-city
airports. But if the FAA imposes user fees based on ATC use, it would
be child's play to stop talking to them -- especially now that we have
XM weather on-board.

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

I don't have a problem with that.



randall g =%^) PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

That's not the difference. Management determines the rules within the
limits of the law and employees either follow, leave or face possible
termination. Management does not have a requirement to provide reasons.

I didn't mention any need for management to "give reasons". My point is
that in one case, the reasons form a feedback loop that tends to make
the business healthy. In the other case, the reasons do not form such a
feedback loop. In no case does this depend on reasons being =provided=
to anybody.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

How would you feel about an annual charge for all the ATC you can eat?
Here in Canada it is $71 per year (us$64) for aircraft 2000 kg.

How about little airplanes =get paid= to interact with ATC, making
themselves available for transponder codes and vectors, so that the big
airplanes don't have to be vectored out of our way due to unverified
altitudes and such?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Maybe that could be a new hobby.

What? Finding someone to fill your hangar? dirty-old-man-grin

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
You've yet to show me an uncontrolled field that is convenient for me.

Are you one of those people who actually live close to where they work?
THAT'S your problem... Move over towards Plano and fight the LBJ traffic
every day like everyone else... At least the weekends will allow you to fly
from an uncontrolled field... Or switch to helicopters and just get yourself
a larger backyard...

"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
When I was 16, I mowed an enormous hammer and sickle in the grass in the
back yard. It was some of my finest work. My father saw it and mowed the
entire back yard at 6:30 the next morning, before he went to work.

I would have made you cut the entire yard with a pair of sissors...