got a call from BDR FSS

On Aug 19, 12:25 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:16:55 -0700, Luke Skywalker
wrote in
.com:



There are two questions about the FSS "modernization" which are in
play.

The first is a tactical one, can Lockmart provide the service that
pilots need to fly safely? My guess is that eventually things improve
and get better.

Given the structure LockMart has imposed on privatized FSS, it is
unlikely that briefers with local metrological knowledge will ever be
available again as they were pre-privatization. That is not an
improvement in service nor will it get better.

The more pressing one, the one that AOPA and others seemed to
completly fall down on, is what is the role of aviation in The
Republic and what is the role of the government in aviation. I
realize that to some degree this is politics and I"ll try and stay out
of that.

https://www.reason.org/atcreform09.shtml
Air Traffic Control Reform Newsletter

Issue No. 9
December 2002

By Robert Poole

Controllers, FAA Mistaken on Privatization

Holiday travelers can expect to be greeted at many airports by
off-duty air traffic controllers protesting an alleged Bush
Administration plan to "farm out to the lowest bidder" their
vitally important jobs. In response, the Federal Aviation
Administration has managed to muddy the waters, rather than
defending the validity of what the Bush folks are actually doing.

First, let's clarify the specific change in federal policy which
the President announced last June. He signed a one-sentence
executive order re-affirming that air traffic control (ATC) is not
"inherently governmental." That order overturned a last-minute
executive order issued by President Clinton, which slipped the
"inherently governmental" language into a broader directive on
reforming ATC. Most aviation experts agree that ATC is a high-tech
service business, which can be provided either by government or by
commercial entities-always operating under stringent governmental
safety regulation. It's the safety regulation that most would
agree is inherently governmental. ...

If ATC isn't inherently governmental, why did the government shut it
down immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks?

But privatization of the FSS system sends a clear message that
nurturing aviation a[n]d maintaining its viability at all levels is no
longer a function of the government of The Republic...It is that
simple.

Sort of like letting the Arabs run the US ports, right?

I think we will all come to regret that as events move forward,
particularly as the next step unless there is a change in thinking in
DC is that the ATC system is next.

You think? :-(

If you like how the space shuttle system is operated...you will love
Lock Mart running the FSS.

Robert

You forgot to mention dismantling the world's safest ATC system and
replacing it with a vulnerable satellite-based system, user fees, and
handing the National Airspace System over to the corporate airline
industry. Perhaps the Bush administration can award a non-competitive
ATC contract to the Arabs instead. :-(

Hello

you will not finding me defending "privatization" of government
essential functions (and ATC/FSS is one) nor this administrations rush
to hand over tax payer dollars to its corporate friends...nor will I
stand in support of the dismantaling rather then the transition of the
worlds safest ATC system.

The nation is in a period of nuttiness and has been since September
2001...I am hoping for a regroup.

Robert

The nation is in a period of nuttiness and has been since September
2001...I am hoping for a regroup.

Robert- Hide quoted text -

Unfortunately, the other party is only defined by their distaste for
wasting money on military adventures, where it should be being wasted
on wealth transfer schemes, in their eyes...
The actual differences between the two parties are so small as to be
nearly invisible - only through a partisan microscope can any
difference be discerned...
Both parties are manned by professional politicians, who's only
mission is to get reelected until the day they retire - or die if you
are a Kennedy...
It appears we have gotten the government we deserve sigh

denny

Someone asked about if the Bridgeport FSS would follow up. Well they
did. I got a call from the Ops Mgr again this morning. I was never
really looking for resolution so much as I wanted them to be aware of
what happened. But what I was told was that the briefer was way out of
line telling me to depart VFR and to contact Boston Approach on that
frequency (it was 118.25, not the right frequency for my sector).

Net net, they are going to pass around their handbook of "how to be a
briefer" and get some recurrent training. A good thing (tm) we should
all do IMHO.

KC

Kevin Clarke wrote:
I'll try to make this long story brief.

On 7/29 I filed via DUATS an IFR departure from KFIT to KBHB via ENE.
This was at 1200Z. My proposed time off was 1500z. My morning went
quicker so when I got to the airport I called BDR FSS on the RCO
118.025 and amended my time off for 1300Z and filed for an alternate
KBGR.

They had no record of my flight plan and called into Boston to get the
info, which I thought was strange. After my runup I called BDR for my
clearance and the controller said, you want to leave now? I wanted the
clearance before I went wheels up because there was SCT at 020. I
didn't want to play dodge-ums, while copying the clearance and
programming the GNS. He said he couldn't get a clearance and would I
depart VFR and pickup my clearance with BOS APPCH on 118.125 (or some
such freq). he commented that that was a good frequency to use. Which
I thought was strange terminology. Normally in this area out of
Fitchburg we dial up BOS on 124.4. But wanting to get underway I
departed VFR, dialed up BOS for the clearance. They seemed surprised I
was airborne and had to scramble to get me the clearance. I got
vectored south-east (hdg 160) which is unusual for a departure out of
KFIT but eventually got my clearance and was turned on course direct ENE.

All along the route as I got transferred from controller to controller
they kept asking "where are you going?". So something was lost and not
in the system. If you check out flightaware.com (N15892) I apparently
diverted to Portland on this flight. Which I did not, it was 5000'
below me. :-) The whole thing was very strange.

The flight was uneventful (I shot a much better ILS through actual
this time into KBHB). I called up the comment line that was posted in
this newsgroup recently and reported my experience, plus some other
FSS weirdness that I experienced the next day trying to get a standard
briefing. Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.

Anyway, yesterday the Ops Mgr from BDR called me as a followup and
went thru all this with me. He was very helpful and wanted to get
things right, which I thought was great. He commented that asking me
to depart VFR was a big no-no and that the frequency they gave me for
BOS was also wrong. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear the resolution but
wanted to share that the system of follow thru anyway is working and
some of the folks there are trying to make this FSS debacle right.

KC

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

I've already noticed that the new briefers are treating me like the
CUSTOMER, not an annoyance, as some of the gummint FSS guys would
occasionally do. It's a matter of attitude and tone which makes calling
them much more pleasant.

You've mentioned this before. As I think I've also written, I experienced
nothing like this from the FSS staffers with whom I dealt prior to the
corporate takeover.


They also clearly have access to superior computer equipment, and are
being encouraged to use every tool at their disposal to help us,
including websites like ADDs. This was NOT the case with the old FSS
guys, whom I often found were using less-capable weather forecasting
tools than I was.

That may be true (though I remember seeing modern Internet-based tools in
use when I visited Millville FSS, once upon a time). But it's not like
this would have been difficult/expensive to achieve w/o the takeover.

If we do assume that you're correct that this was somehow unavailable
before the takeover, then this was likely an artificial condition held
precisely for the purpose of making the takeover look better.


Finally, the fact that many of the new guys are real pilots sure gives
me a sense of confidence that I'm talking to someone who actually walks
the walk. I rarely had the impression with old FSS.

Perhaps. But I'd prefer an aviation-ignorant weather expert to the
reverse. Admittedly, though, I'd prefer dual experts. Again, though, I'm
not sure why hiring aviators had to wait for the takeover. Perhaps
because it was ditching the weather experts that made room for the
aviators?

- Andrew

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:15:13 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Doesn't it make more sense to have a few ground-based radar installations
for traffic separation rather than the hundreds of thousands of ADS/B
installations for it to work?

How would a few ground-based installations cover the entire nation? Or
are you speaking only of the LA area?

One advantage of ADS-B is that properly equiped aircraft can "see" each
other even outside of RADAR coverage. Being in RADAR coverage provides
additional "service" (more information is spread more widely), but the
system doesn't *require* that coverage to function.

However, outside of RADAR coverage full (and mutually compatible!) ADS-B
ubiquity is necessary. And since, at least last time I checked, ADS-B has
at least two (three?) mutually incompatible transceivers, even achieving
100% installation wouldn't be enough.

My opinion is that this is a good idea but (1) it'll take some time for
the full utility to be achieved and (2) it'll be completely screwed if the
compatibility issue is left unresolved.

As far as the GPS requirement, this is a separate issue. "Modern"
navigation devices should exploit a combination of space and ground based
systems. Why we have "GPS units" rather than more diverse "Navigation
units" is probably just a matter of cost. But, obviously, there's yet to
be much in the way of a call for these superior "Navigation units".

Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Perhaps it isn't cost, but the expectation
that ground based navaids are really going to be shut down. That would be
bad.

- Andrew

On Aug 22, 6:39 am, Denny wrote:
The nation is in a period of nuttiness and has been since September
2001...I am hoping for a regroup.

Robert- Hide quoted text -

Unfortunately, the other party is only defined by their distaste for
wasting money on military adventures, where it should be being wasted
on wealth transfer schemes, in their eyes...
The actual differences between the two parties are so small as to be
nearly invisible - only through a partisan microscope can any
difference be discerned...
Both parties are manned by professional politicians, who's only
mission is to get reelected until the day they retire - or die if you
are a Kennedy...
It appears we have gotten the government we deserve sigh

denny

I think we have the government and national situation we deserve...I
just wish we could do better.

The FSS situation (and eventually the privatization of ATC) is to my
mind an argument upon which two foundations tilt...the first is 1)
what is the proper role of government and 2) what are wealth
transfers....

Taxes are in my view a wealth transfer from individuals to the
collective government to do things for our collective society...I hate
the word collective because before long we get to the socialism
argument...

BUT FLYING IS A WEALTH TRANSFER...the American people transfer wealth
to the federal government to run a good ATC system, to make sure the
planes are safe, the navaids work...pilots are correctly certified and
trained...

It is the price we all pay for a functioning society. More then once
I have had people tell me "I dont fly so why do I care that the system
works" ....because our economy and our culture in general depend on
it. It is just like public schools or any of the other myriad of
things that the government does.

To different groups each function it does is either something of
enormous value (try the space shuttle system on NASA Rd 1...aka Nasa
Parkway) or it is a boondoggle...breakfast for kids in public schools.

I am one who believes and likes the US as a superpower and that means
we have agovernment that can make a superpower work.

Robert

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:33:04 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote in
:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:15:13 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

Doesn't it make more sense to have a few ground-based radar installations
for traffic separation rather than the hundreds of thousands of ADS/B
installations for it to work?

How would a few ground-based installations cover the entire nation? Or
are you speaking only of the LA area?

I'm speaking of the current system. It pretty much covers the CONUS
down to the line-of-sight floor. I doubt there are hundreds of
thousands of FAA radar installations.

One advantage of ADS-B is that properly equiped aircraft can "see" each
other even outside of RADAR coverage. Being in RADAR coverage provides
additional "service" (more information is spread more widely), but the
system doesn't *require* that coverage to function.

That certainly is a significant advantage if it doesn't lull the crew
into relying on ADS/B exclusively for separation.

How much does it cost to properly equip the GA and military fleets
with ADS/B?

Incidentally, the military doesn't intend to install ADS/B in their
aircraft, so ADS/B equipped GA flights will still not be able to "see"
the fast-movers on MTRs, nor any NORDO flights.

However, outside of RADAR coverage full (and mutually compatible!) ADS-B
ubiquity is necessary. And since, at least last time I checked, ADS-B has
at least two (three?) mutually incompatible transceivers, even achieving
100% installation wouldn't be enough.

OMG, you've got to be kidding. Three incompatible ADS/B systems?
Surely that's destined to change, right?

My opinion is that this is a good idea but (1) it'll take some time for
the full utility to be achieved

Given the fact that the military does not intend to equip its fleet
with ADS/B, full utility will *never* be achieved.

and (2) it'll be completely screwed if the compatibility issue is left unresolved.

Or in the event of GPS unavailability due to jamming, solar activity,
or intentional shutdown as may occur in the event of perceived or real
threats to the nation.

As far as the GPS requirement, this is a separate issue. "Modern"
navigation devices should exploit a combination of space and ground based
systems.

Exactly.

Why we have "GPS units" rather than more diverse "Navigation
units" is probably just a matter of cost. But, obviously, there's yet to
be much in the way of a call for these superior "Navigation units".

The issue of price, and the recurring cost of periodic database
updates will substantially delay the ubiquity of such systems.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Perhaps it isn't cost, but the expectation
that ground based navaids are really going to be shut down. That would be
bad.


I agree. Decommissioning the existing navaids would be less than
prudent.

Of course, we're looking at the issue from a personal-GA point of view
not an airline POV.