who uses FSS?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
news
A lot of people would have that ability if a lot of people knew N12345
was on an IFR flight to XYZ. On your typical IFR trips, how many
people know your N-number and destination?

My first thought is... "Anyone who paid $9.95 to Flight Explorer."

If you're going to imagine a new capability for IFR flight plans why
bother with FSS at all? Why not just route a call to 1-800-IFR-PLAN
to the appropriate ATC position?

Some of this is not the FAA's problem, it's the phone companies. There
is a mechanism the phone company offers that allows a call to an 800
number to be routed to a "local" service center. Unfortunately, this
was implemented before cell phones. There is NOT a mechanism (that I am
aware of) that allows the calls to be routed based on the LOCATION of
the cell phone, but rather only based on the "licensed" location of the
cell phone... i.e. home.

So if you buy your cell phone in New York, travel to LA, and call FSS -
you get New York FSS. It's dumb, but it's the way it is.

FWIW, I **would** normally have checked the AF/D (which now prints the
local FSS phone numbers), but I had not anticipated the need. The
forecast was for ceilings 6000, which would have easily allowed for both
canceling on the ground and likewise picking up my new clearance
airborne. [Usually good in that area down to about 1200 MSL.] But, as
we all know, there are forecasts, and there is *weather*!

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

My experience is that this is completely random. Sometimes my cellphone
gives me the local FSS correspondiong to where I am, sometimes it
gives me Oakland - as it would if I called it from my home airport, except
that there is no cellphone coverage at my home airport.

Generally, implementation of cellphones in the US calls to mind the
observation once made (a long time ago) about Englishwomen's
shoes: that they appear to have been made by someone who has
heard shoes described, but never actually seen one. It blows my mind
that the heart of Silicon Valley has grossly inadequate cellphone coverage,
for example, but it's true. And as for international roaming with a US
phone, good luck.

John

"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
news
A lot of people would have that ability if a lot of people knew N12345
was on an IFR flight to XYZ. On your typical IFR trips, how many
people know your N-number and destination?

My first thought is... "Anyone who paid $9.95 to Flight Explorer."

If you're going to imagine a new capability for IFR flight plans why
bother with FSS at all? Why not just route a call to 1-800-IFR-PLAN
to the appropriate ATC position?

Some of this is not the FAA's problem, it's the phone companies. There
is a mechanism the phone company offers that allows a call to an 800
number to be routed to a "local" service center. Unfortunately, this
was implemented before cell phones. There is NOT a mechanism (that I am
aware of) that allows the calls to be routed based on the LOCATION of
the cell phone, but rather only based on the "licensed" location of the
cell phone... i.e. home.

So if you buy your cell phone in New York, travel to LA, and call FSS -
you get New York FSS. It's dumb, but it's the way it is.

FWIW, I **would** normally have checked the AF/D (which now prints the
local FSS phone numbers), but I had not anticipated the need. The
forecast was for ceilings 6000, which would have easily allowed for both
canceling on the ground and likewise picking up my new clearance
airborne. [Usually good in that area down to about 1200 MSL.] But, as
we all know, there are forecasts, and there is *weather*!

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

"John Harper" wrote in message news:1065572854.391864@sj-nntpcache-3...
My experience is that this is completely random

The number presented to the 800 routing is the billing number. Depending
on how you are injected into the cellular network it may be your home number
or a number geographically similar to it, or it maybe something dependent on
the cellular carrier whose system you are locally using

"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...

Some of this is not the FAA's problem, it's the phone companies. There
is a mechanism the phone company offers that allows a call to an 800
number to be routed to a "local" service center. Unfortunately, this
was implemented before cell phones. There is NOT a mechanism (that I am
aware of) that allows the calls to be routed based on the LOCATION of
the cell phone, but rather only based on the "licensed" location of the
cell phone... i.e. home.

So if you buy your cell phone in New York, travel to LA, and call FSS -
you get New York FSS. It's dumb, but it's the way it is.


I recall reading about this problem some years ago, it had to do with cell
phone calls to 911. Was that deficiency not corrected?



FWIW, I **would** normally have checked the AF/D (which now prints the
local FSS phone numbers), but I had not anticipated the need. The
forecast was for ceilings 6000, which would have easily allowed for both
canceling on the ground and likewise picking up my new clearance
airborne. [Usually good in that area down to about 1200 MSL.] But, as
we all know, there are forecasts, and there is *weather*!


I assume you meant "canceling in the air".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:

I recall reading about this problem some years ago, it had to do with
cell phone calls to 911. Was that deficiency not corrected?

Nope. I have the similar problem with 311 (911 for urgent but not
emergency situations). If I call to report an unsafe condition while
driving to or from the airport I will get Austin (where my phone is
located). They will have to transfer me to the more local police
department in whatever city I am actually calling from.

Eventually e911 will solve this particular problem, but by a different
mechanism. Still won't help with things like FSS.

I assume you meant "canceling in the air".

Doh! Yes, quite correct.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

"James M. Knox" wrote in message
...

Eventually e911 will solve this particular problem, but by a different
mechanism. Still won't help with things like FSS.


Why not? Why would it work for 911 but not FSS?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
news
Why not? Why would it work for 911 but not FSS?

Because it is not solving the basic underlying problem. Instead it is a
"fix" specifically for 911. It *does* go well beyond the requirement to
identify your general location - it requires that you be located with a
hundred feet or so (depending on urban vs. rural environment).

As such it is not designed to be used on "routine" calls - only on a very
limited emergency basis.

The basic problem could obviously be fixed. The system always knows which
cell site your phone is registered to at any given moment. But changing
the routing sequence on the fly for a somewhat arbitrary selection of calls
is software development money that the public carriers are not going to
spend.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

"James M. Knox" wrote in message ...

The basic problem could obviously be fixed. The system always knows which
cell site your phone is registered to at any given moment. But changing
the routing sequence on the fly for a somewhat arbitrary selection of calls
is software development money that the public carriers are not going to
spend.

It will probably get pushed to a head commercially when they start requiring
more fancy number portability (accross area codes).

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...


I recall reading about this problem some years ago, it had to do with cell
phone calls to 911. Was that deficiency not corrected?

There's no pressing requirement (yet) that they fix the 800 number routing.
Nobody is worked up over it, there isn't a whole lot of people who route calls
based on a hard location (usually it's just a load distribution thing).