got a call from BDR FSS

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:25:25 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote in :

On 8/16/2007 9:26:03 AM, Kevin Clarke wrote:

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.
Total BS, but you knew that.

Perhaps not total. The system may be programmed (currently) to
require a destination different from the departure point. Hopefully
that will be corrected.

It shouldn't have been. It has always been legitimate and the old
FAA-run computers never had a freaking problem with it.

It's just the freaking Lockmart outsourced to the third world, no
motivation or incentive, to do things safe or right that screws it up.

Ummm, I'm finding the new FSS people to be polite and eager to help...
Sorry if that bursts anyone's preconceived hostility to the new
operators of the FSS system...

denny

I see on http://www.afss.com/transition/ that BDR AFSS is scheduled to
be closed on September 24 which is delayed from August 20 which was
delayed from July 9.

Unfortunately those delays can't keep going on forever. After all, it's
a private company now, not the government.

On Aug 16, 8:26 am, 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

Interesting...

Working and really working are two different things.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Robert

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. :-(

Well, the nose of the camel is having the gummint require us to check
in with ATC on every flight (and pay their fees) as is common in some
european countries...

As far as me personally, ATC could vanish and it would affect me very
little - and that 'little' could be worked around... I file IFR less
and less... When I do not file IFR I do not need ATC...
I can, do, and have, flown from one border of this country to the
other without talking to ATC...
Without ATC, if the weather is IFR I would have to lay over until it
improves... That would affect roughly 10% of my trips... From my
point of view an acceptable price for having the gummint off my
back...

denny

Warning... thread drift.

After watching 60 Minutes last night, I am more convinced than ever that
Lock Mart is a disaster and the federal government is so in bed with
them that we're screwed.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:30:58 -0700, Denny wrote
in . com:

As far as me personally, ATC could vanish and it would affect me very
little - and that 'little' could be worked around... I file IFR less
and less... When I do not file IFR I do not need ATC...
I can, do, and have, flown from one border of this country to the
other without talking to ATC...

Out here in the Los Angeles basin, the air traffic is so thick, that I
wouldn't consider not using Radar Advisory Service on VFR flights. But
if I had to pay for it, I might reconsider that decision.

Privatized, user fee based, ATC must necessarily negatively impact air
safety, because it provides a disincentive (dollar price) against the
use of aviation services meant to enhance safety.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:30:58 -0700, Denny wrote
in . com:

As far as me personally, ATC could vanish and it would affect me very
little - and that 'little' could be worked around... I file IFR less
and less... When I do not file IFR I do not need ATC...
I can, do, and have, flown from one border of this country to the
other without talking to ATC...

Out here in the Los Angeles basin, the air traffic is so thick, that I
wouldn't consider not using Radar Advisory Service on VFR flights. But
if I had to pay for it, I might reconsider that decision.

Privatized, user fee based, ATC must necessarily negatively impact air
safety, because it provides a disincentive (dollar price) against the
use of aviation services meant to enhance safety.


If, with a simple box upgrade, you could be sure that you knew where all the traffic was, would you still want the radar
advisories?

think ADS/B

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