A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AOPA and ATC Privatization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 4th 03, 02:42 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Chip Jones wrote:Err, no. I mean *lowest* bidder. The idea is to save money.
The FAA (and

your taxes) pays for the infrastructure. The *low* bidder runs the ATC
facility for the cheapest price. The way the contractor saves money is to
slash salaries and cut staffing. ATC "on the cheap" is literally what is
going on.


What is "cheap" to you may very well be reasonable to someone else. Once you
go down the slippery slope of glittering generalities, it simply becomes a
****ing contest.

Some thing Jane gave the store away to NATCA. I deal with a lot of AFS and AVN
folks and they certainly harbor more and more resentment towards ATS. Whatever
else goes on, that is not healthy for the FAA as an organization.

  #52  
Old September 4th 03, 06:31 PM
Everett M. Greene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tarver Engineering" writes:
[snip]
ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until lately
that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became the
majority of the total body count.


Could we be more specific? Air traffic separation incidents
resulting in a body count implies aircraft collisions. The
only one I can recall is a runway incursion error at LAX a
few years ago. Are there others?
  #53  
Old September 4th 03, 07:06 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" writes:
[snip]
ATC unions have blocked automation for 30 years, but it was not until

lately
that the catastrophic events generated by ATC seperation error became

the
majority of the total body count.


Could we be more specific? Air traffic separation incidents
resulting in a body count implies aircraft collisions. The
only one I can recall is a runway incursion error at LAX a
few years ago. Are there others?


The A-300 at Rockaway and USAir 427 have been identified by the
Administrator as seperation incidents. There is no need for a collision,
just proximity. Following too close can cause "flow separation" due to
turbulance and that flow seperation is known to have caused "rudder
reversal" for the A-300 at Rockaway. USAir 427 is a nearly identical event,
except there was no DFDR to prove the rudder reversed; but only the rudder
pedals pounded through the floor. The system paid a high price for 737
rudder PCU replacement, that was probably specious in nature.

Similar to small GA icing incidents. (ie rudder flow seperation)


  #54  
Old September 4th 03, 08:22 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Everett M. Greene wrote:


Oh, and the contract usually ends up being awarded to the
corporation with the best political connections independent
of the government's evaluation of "best qualified".


Or the award goes to the contractor that defined the requirements. The
articles at:

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...003400,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/business/03BOEI.html

make for bizzare reading.

- Andrew

  #55  
Old September 5th 03, 03:04 AM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell
wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in
link.net:

The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.

"the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
pilots and controllers.


And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to pay
for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
pays taxes,


My understanding:
The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
system, not he general taxpayer.

It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
to the way congress lets them have their own money.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

and the burden to any one individual is negligible.


  #56  
Old September 5th 03, 03:24 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Are there others?


There was a case a few years ago in which the controller at Hartsfield set
a pssenger jet down on top of a light plane that hadn't cleared the active yet.
As I recall, it turned four people into little red smears.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.
  #57  
Old September 5th 03, 03:41 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

There was a case a few years ago in which the controller at Hartsfield set
a pssenger jet down on top of a light plane that hadn't cleared the active
yet.
As I recall, it turned four people into little red smears.


NTSB Identification: DCA90MA017B.

The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 39504.

Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of EASTERN AIRLINES (D.B.A.
operation of EASTERN AIRLINES )

Accident occurred Thursday, January 18, 1990 in ATLANTA, GA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/3/93
Aircraft: BOEING 727, registration: N8867E
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious, 157 Uninjured.

DRG ARR AT NGT, BEECH A100 (KING AIR, N44UE) WAS CLRD FOR AN ILS RWY 26R
APCH BEHIND CONTINENTAL FLT 9687, THEN EASTERN AIRLINE (EA) FLT 111 (BOEING
727, N8867E) WAS CLRD FOR THE SAME APCH BEHIND THE KING AIR. AFTER LNDG, FLT
9687 HAD A RADIO PROBLEM & THE TWR CTLR HAD DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING WITH
FLT 9687. MEANWHILE, THE KING AIR LNDD & ITS CREW HAD MOVED THE ACFT TO THE
RGT SIDE OF THE RWY NR TWY-D (THE PRIMARY TWY FOR GEN AVN ACFT). THE TURNOFF
FOR TWY-D WAS ABT 3800'FM THE APCH END OF RWY 26R. BEFORE THE KING AIR WAS
CLR OF THE RWY, EA 111 LNDD & CONVERGED ON THE KING AIR. THE CREW OF EA 111
DID NOT SEE THE KING AIR UNTIL MOMENTS BFR THE ACDNT. THE CAPT TRIED TO
AVOID A COLLISION, BUT THE BOEING'S RGT WING STRUCK THE KING AIR, SHEARING
THE TOP OF ITS FUSELAGE & COCKPIT. SOME OF THE KING AIR'S STROBE/BEACON LGTS
WERE INOP, THOUGH THEY MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED FOR THE IMC
APCH. THE LOCAL CTLR DID NOT ISSUE A TFC ADZY TO EA 111 WITH THE LNDG CLNC.
(SEE: NTSB/AAR-91/03)

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

(1) FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROL PROCEDURES THAT ADEQUATELY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HUMAN PERFORMANCE
FACTORS SUCH AS THOSE WHICH RESULTED IN THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL
CONTROLLER TO DETECT THE DEVELOPING CONFLICT BETWEEN N44UE AND EA 111, AND
(2) THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL CONTROLLER TO ENSURE THE SEPARATION OF
ARRIVING AIRCRAFT WHICH WERE USING THE SAME RUNWAY. CONTRIBUTING TO THE
ACCIDENT WAS THE FAILURE OF THE NORTH LOCAL CONTROLLER TO FOLLOW THE
PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE OF ISSUING APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC INFORMATION TO EA 111,
AND FAILURE OF THE NORTH FINAL CONTROLLER AND THE RADAR MONITOR CONTROLLER
TO ISSUE TIMELY SPEED REDUCTIONS TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SEPARATION BETWEEN
AIRCRAFT ON FINAL APPROACH.


  #58  
Old September 5th 03, 04:20 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No way. Everything I have read, including anti-privatization pieces from
AOPA, says fuel taxes and airlilne ticket taxes do not come close to funding
ATC and airport improvements. If it was already self funding, there would
be no incentive to privatize it and the controllers union wouldn't be afraid
of privatization.

Mike
MU-2


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On 04 Sep 2003 04:27:03 GMT, Stan Gosnell
wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in
link.net:

The pilots don't like it because they are forced to pay for the
services that they recieve. Everybody else likes it.

"the people who have personally benefitted financially" are the
pilots and controllers.


And those few citizens who buy airline tickets. If the airlines had to

pay
for ATC services, do you really think they wouldn't pass those charges on
to the passengers? As it is, the cost is spread out among everyone who
pays taxes,


My understanding:
The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
system, not he general taxpayer.

It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
to the way congress lets them have their own money.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

and the burden to any one individual is negligible.




  #59  
Old September 5th 03, 11:52 AM
Mark Kolber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:49:59 -0400, xyzzy wrote:

Or alternatively, in 2007 maybe we'll have a President and/or a Congress
from the party that doesn't think the way to run the country is to give
it all away to large corporations.


Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I'm not sure what party
you're talking about, but the one that lost the last election was no
bed of roses when it comes to this issue. Friendliness or
unfriendliness to GA is not party-related in the way some other issues
are.

==============================

And Chip Jones said

I'm sqauwking now. We appear to me to be at a juncture in this debate
similar to the old saying about the Nazi's in Germany.


You are not going to convince me, nor hopefully anyone else, that
there is moral or political equivalent between balancing the overall
benefits of a legislative package to your group and sitting idly by
while people are murdered. "Hall of horrors" comparisons like that are
used regularly as a last ditch effort by the desperate to rally the
ignorant, add absolutely nothing to the debate and tend to be
personally offensive to those who were the target of the acts being
used for the comparison.

Sure. Consolidating job responsibilities and moving a portion of
traditionally public sector jobs to the private one is =just= like
genocide. Give me a break.





Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"
  #60  
Old September 5th 03, 02:49 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Rick Durden wrote:

So long as ATC services are paid for via gasoline tax, things have
worked very well.


Not only that, but the cost of collection is negligible. As a conservative
estimate, the cost of collecting user fees will triple the current expense
of ATC (the cost of collecting tolls on the NJ toll roads is over 80% of

the
total cost of that system).

Must be like the Chicago tollroads, where the tolls that were going to be
done in ten years are now into their 40th year.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.