How long before /G required for IFR?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:58:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

Far more likely you swivel-heads will get the few AFSS guys who actually
are
qualified controllers.

Swivelheads= Tower controller types, ie- McNicoll and Newps.

Ironic, too, in a twisted FAA way.. After all, the
69 Level 2-3 VFR towers will be the next part of the NAS auctioned off
to
the low bidder, followed by Level-Three up-down terminal facilities.

FAA used to have 5 grades of terminal facilities, from Level 1-5, with 1
being the lowest and 5 being places like New York, Chicago, Atlanta etc.
FAA has since reclassified the ATC personnel system into a series of
paygrades based on workload, complexity, volume etc. AT Facilities are now
Level 5-12. Places like Casper WY and Sioux City IA are ATC 5. Places
like Billings MT and Green Bay WS are ATC 6 and 7. Places like Cinncinnati
and Detroit are ATC-11. Places like New York and Chicago are ATC-12.

The FAA is trying to save money. Personnel costs are eating up a lot of the
budget. Since ATC privatization has been proven safe and cost-effective in
the VFR tower environment, and since the FAA just won a lawsuit defending
the NFCT program against NATCA, it is extremely likely that FAA will revisit
the privatization of 69 non-Alaskan FAA ATC towers this coming year. What
these towers have in common is that they do not have a radar room/tracon
associated with them.

After the remaining VFR towers get contracted out, the smaller tracons (ie-
places like Florence SC, Billings MT etc) will be next. These facilities
are also known as "up-down" facilities because tradtionally they have a
tower cab "up" and a radar room/tracon "down" in the base of the tower. By
marking these facilities for consolidation with a larger facility or for
out-right privatization, the FAA sheds excess personnel overhead and
eliminates payroll waste. Either way, the FAA controllers at the facility
will have to move, retire, or go find another job.



Those
few AFSS people who get picked up in air traffic will be job-hunting
again
in about five years, along with a whole bunch of terminal 2152's.


"2152" is the government job classification for air traffic control
specialists. AFSS "controllers", Terminal "controllers" and En Route Air
Traffic Controllers (who work in Centers) are all "2152's", even though AFSS
is to Swivelhead what Swivelhead is Enroute. AFSS doesn't control air
traffic, yet they are 2152's, and Swivelheads don't generally have a clue
about anything beyond the range of their binoculars or their puny ASR radar
at the local airport, yet they too are 2152's. It's like comparing
buzzards, chickenhawks and eagles, in that order.

Serco or
Lockmart is headed your way right around 2010 or so.

Serco and Lockmart are the two leading corporate contenders IMO to win the
next round of ATC privatization. Midwest ATC may be in the running too, but
Serco and Lockmart have the clout to win the bigger pieces of the ATC pie
when the Republicans running FAA start paying off their corporate buddies
over the rest of this decade. I give Newps and McNicoll's facilities about
5 to 6 years of belonging to the FAA, and then they will split the radar
facility from the tower, privatize the tower, and move the radar room to a
larger place. By then, so many federal controllers will be retiring it
really wont matter to most of them.

Hope that is clearer...

Chip, ZTL

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

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

My source for that is the exact source you quote. It does indeed have
data
for CY 2004...


It does? How can that be? It says the latest edition is November 2004.
How can it have data for all of 2004?



Who said anything about *all* off 2004??? You wrote:

" Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's
Fact
Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated quarterly,
the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004."

The latest official data in your own source plainly states that ZTL handled
1,836,000 aircraft between January and July of 2004. During that same time
period, ZOB handled 1,787,000 aircraft. Pretty simple math...

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

Who said anything about *all* off 2004???


I did.



You wrote:

" Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's
Fact Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated
quarterly,
the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004."

The latest official data in your own source plainly states that ZTL
handled
1,836,000 aircraft between January and July of 2004. During that same
time
period, ZOB handled 1,787,000 aircraft. Pretty simple math...


So the title of "world's busiest ATC facility" goes to the facility that
handles the most traffic in the early months of the year? Why is that? I
see that ZTL also handled more traffic than ZOB between January and March of
2003, but ZOB handled more during the full calendar year.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:39:12 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
Dunno about Piper, but I got a replacement digital clock for the yoke mount
in my 1965 M20E to replace the 7-day windup analog original.\

Almost certainly an 8-day windup. That was standard for the genre. The
idea was you picked a set weekly schedule to wind it (i.e. every Monday
morning), and it never got down below 1 day's worth of winding left.

It sure could have been an 8-day windup. But it hasn't been there for
years.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

Who said anything about *all* off 2004???


I did.

LOL, you attempted to say that *I* did. I did not...




You wrote:

" Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's
Fact Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated
quarterly,
the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004."

The latest official data in your own source plainly states that ZTL
handled
1,836,000 aircraft between January and July of 2004. During that same
time
period, ZOB handled 1,787,000 aircraft. Pretty simple math...


So the title of "world's busiest ATC facility" goes to the facility that
handles the most traffic in the early months of the year? Why is that? I
see that ZTL also handled more traffic than ZOB between January and March
of
2003, but ZOB handled more during the full calendar year.


I'm not talking about the "title" of world's busiest ATC facility, I'm
talking about the world's busiest ATC facility. In the first quarter of
2003, ZTL was the world's busiest ATC facility. In 2004, all of the
reported *facts* in the Administrator's *Factbook* for 2004 data clearly
show ZTL busier than ZOB in 2004 for the 7 reported months of available
data. January thru July is a period of seven months out of 12 in the
calendar. The period January thru July is not the "early" months of the
year anywhere (except maybe Green Bay WI, where I expect the first thaw
ain't until June). Facts and Factbooks are stubborn things...

Chip, ZTL

One must have on board the aircraft all the equipment required by the
regulations.

.... and I contend that the aircraft I described is =not= equipped for
IFR flight according to the regulations, tuna sandwich notwithstanding.
You seem to disagree. I don't understand why. Perhaps it's just a
limitation of my pea brain, but I don't know how to navigate in IMC
using only a tuna sandwich (although I do know how to navigate with
(say) a VOR =and= a tuna sandwich. I must have been asleep during the
tuna portion of my ground school.

But I am curious. Which regulations refer to the equipment required
"inside controlled airspace outside of radar coverage"?

The regulation (quoted here many times) that says one must have
navigation equipment appropriate to the navigation system being used.
In a radar environment you could argue that radar vectors are the
navigation system being used, and I won't waste time arguing that. Nor
will I argue about whether certain rules apply outside of controlled
airspace. I would imagine that the requirements are =at least= as
strict inside of controlled airspace in a non-radar environment, and
that's what I'm aiming at.

So, while it is not illegal to fly with a tuna sandwich, it is (AFAIK)
illegal to fly (outside of an emergency) in controlled airspace in a
non-radar environment without navigation equipment, irrespective of the
presence of a tuna sandwich. You =seem= to disagree (probably just for
effect) but won't come out and say it point blank.

So... yes or no... do you believe it is legal to launch and continue IFR
flight in US controlled airspace in a non-radar environment outside of
an emergency in an aircraft that is equipped for IFR flight except for
navigation equipment, and in addition, has a tuna sandwich intended for
for navigation use?

And can you point me to a tuna sandwich approach to any airport in the US?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

So, while it is not illegal to fly with a tuna sandwich, it is (AFAIK) illegal to fly (outside of an emergency) in controlled airspace in a non-radar environment without navigation equipment, irrespective of the presence of a tuna sandwich.

Of course I meant "...to fly under IFR..."

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:51:43 -0800, wrote:

But, it does not include VFR
GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.

Simply because they do not "qualify for IFR navigation" does not
preclude their being used for IFR navigation.

It does in a non-radar environment.

wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:51:43 -0800, wrote:

But, it does not include VFR
GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.

As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.

Does not mean I cannot use my Radio Shack timer to navigate.

A clock is not an device that receives navigation signals.

VOR facilities are not specified in the regulations, unlike the clock.
"Ground facilities" are, and are supported by ATC policy statements,
which presume VOR to be the primary means of navigation in the NAS.

It's not my argument; it's the FAA's and they win every time with it in
an eforcement proceeding.

wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:51:43 -0800, wrote:

But, it does not include VFR
GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.

As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.

Does not mean I cannot use my Radio Shack timer to navigate.

wrote in message ...

Simply because they do not "qualify for IFR navigation" does not
preclude their being used for IFR navigation.


It does in a non-radar environment.


Moot point. An off-airways clearance beyond usable navaid limits is not
available in a nonradar environment.