HOUSE BILL COULD KILL FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION

Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 27 July 8, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE BILL COULD KILL FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION
A simple, one-line amendment to the FAA's appropriations bill could
kill improved flight service station services for general aviation
pilots. The amendment reads, "None of the funds made available in
this Act may be used to provide for the competitive sourcing of flight
service stations." Last week, the House passed the Transportation-
Treasury-Housing Appropriations bill with the amendment, sponsored
by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). And it means, in plain English, that
the FAA would be forced to terminate the FSS modernization contract
with Lockheed-Martin, the taxpayers would pay a $325 million penalty
to Lockheed, and pilots would continue to suffer through interminable
hold times and briefers who don't have access to all the data in the
system. "It's incredulous that in an atmosphere of concerns for FAA
funding, more business-like air traffic operations--and wise use of
taxpayers dollars--that Congress even considered, much less accepted,
this amendment," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "We've worked with
the FAA for three long years to get a better safety-of-flight
information system for general aviation pilots that will also save
$2.2 billion over 10 years. It would be a travesty for all of that
to be undone now to return to a labor-intensive, antiquated, expensive
system that can't meet modern needs." See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...50706bill.html ).


WHAT THE AMENDMENT MEANS TO GA PILOTS
What happens if the funding bill, complete with the amendment halting
the FSS modernization contract, becomes law? Things won't get any
better, and they could get a lot worse. "Everything that AOPA has
worked for--improved services, performance guarantees, Internet access
to briefings, and $2.2 billion in cost savings over the next
decade--would be lost," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. Maintaining
the status quo would be costly and inefficient, and some legal experts
believe the FAA would be forced to honor the bid that was submitted by
current FSS employees during the A-76 bidding process. That bid would
cut the number of FSS facilities from 58 to four, forcing more than
900 employees to relocate and possibly resulting in even more job
losses. Lockheed-Martin's bid keeps 20 facilities in place with 1,000
employees, while the FSS employees' bid would build new facilities and
keep only 966 workers. "Many services must be provided by government
employees for reasons of coordination, security, and safety," said
Boyer. "But FSS functions provided by private industry under
government supervision don't compromise that." See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...50706bill.html ).

Larry Dighera wrote:
Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?

A friend to GA would let FSS die.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:14:11 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::



Larry Dighera wrote:
Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?

A friend to GA would let FSS die.

If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:14:11 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::



Larry Dighera wrote:
Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?

A friend to GA would let FSS die.

If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?

FSS costs $502m annually according to the FAA. There are roughly 5,000
public-use airports to think about. That's $100k per airport PER YEAR.
How much do those WSI satellite terminals cost?

Let's get even more creative... A Garmin 396 costs $2500. There are
about 100,000 N-numbered aircraft, IIRC. The government could buy us
all a G-396 for Christmas, and have $250 million left over that year to
buy us XM Weather subscriptions, which would leave $200m in the bank.
In the first year. Year 2 the savings go waaay up.

The issue here is that Weather, TFRs, etc. are information. Information
costs a fixed amount to manufacture, and a variable amount to
distribute. FSS with 2500 employees is a very costly way of
distributing it. My example of the 396 is not meant literally but it
shows just how ridiculous the gap is.

If FSS added significant value through human expertise, it would be
different. It's my understanding that once upon a time, FSS specialists
actually had local expertise and could tell you things that weren't
written in the forecasts. If that's what we had, I'd fight for it too.
Nowadays it seems to me that they are basically unionized, highly-paid
call center reps. Talk about contradictions in terms. If you're coming
at his from the labor union angle that wants to preserve any union job,
that's logical, but it's not benefiting GA. Imagine if instead of using
Google you had to call a phone number and have people read URLs back to
you. Welcome to FSS today.

-cwk.

On 22 Sep 2005 07:44:24 -0700, wrote in
.com::


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:14:11 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::


Larry Dighera wrote:
Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?

A friend to GA would let FSS die.

If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?

The issue here is that Weather, TFRs, etc. are information. Information
costs a fixed amount to manufacture, and a variable amount to
distribute. FSS with 2500 employees is a very costly way of
distributing it. My example of the 396 is not meant literally but it
shows just how ridiculous the gap is.

If FSS added significant value through human expertise, it would be
different. It's my understanding that once upon a time, FSS specialists
actually had local expertise and could tell you things that weren't
written in the forecasts. If that's what we had, I'd fight for it too.

The issue you raise, whether or not FSS' are necessary, is not the
issue I mentioned, user fees.

But I would agree that FSS could be pretty much replaced by DUATS.
However, I still prefer the luxury of a live preflight briefing.

Fees for aircraft registration should be increased to help offest some of the costs of the system. It should be based on
max takeoff weight.

I like the comments about giving away a GPS with all the info systems built in. The next question however is who loads
the information to start with? Who put up and maintains the satellites? Who summarizes the wx details? Who takes the
flight plan and closes it?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 07:44:24 -0700, wrote in
.com::

If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?

The issue here is that Weather, TFRs, etc. are information. Information
costs a fixed amount to manufacture, and a variable amount to
distribute. FSS with 2500 employees is a very costly way of
distributing it. My example of the 396 is not meant literally but it
shows just how ridiculous the gap is.

If FSS added significant value through human expertise, it would be
different. It's my understanding that once upon a time, FSS specialists
actually had local expertise and could tell you things that weren't
written in the forecasts. If that's what we had, I'd fight for it too.

The issue you raise, whether or not FSS' are necessary, is not the
issue I mentioned, user fees.

Sorry, I thought you asked, "If there were no Flight Service Stations,
how would you get briefed about all the pop-up TFRs and military
activity?"



As for user fees, they seem pretty much inevitable, and it's been my
position that GA might be better off to play ball on the concept and
make our fight on the magnitude. IIRC a Canadian 172 owner would pay
something like $120 annually, which seems to me like, well, chump
change considering the costs of aviation overall.

But I would agree that FSS could be pretty much replaced by DUATS.
However, I still prefer the luxury of a live preflight briefing.

Then we could have a 1-900 number. Press 1 for redhead, press 2 for
Asian, press 3 to talk to a preflight briefer....

Best,
-cwk.

Please explain.