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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|