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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ATC stand and deliver? (was: O'Hare Controllers Raise Alarm, Blame Small Planes
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:44:13 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll
wrote: The solution does involve more spending, on concrete. You already have a more than adequate supply of the stuff. :-) Morris (with my own above-the-neck supply) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"journeyman" wrote in message u.com... You already have a more than adequate supply of the stuff. :-) Ya live in a cave? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message ... Sydney Hoeltzli wrote: Newps wrote: [snipped] IOW, you're saying if ZTL is understaffed, blame NATCA for poor negotiation? Not necessarily. There are a lot of facilities in the Southern region. Others may have a greater need. LOL! That's a hoot! The Southern Region is full of fat and happy towers and four not so happy Centers. In order to fully staff ARTCCs and maintain system safety, are controllers in general prepared to "give" anywhere else? Not really. While I feel for Chip and others stuck in that hell hole and others like it there's no way I'm going there. Not for a lousy $150K per year. The money is great. All I have to do is live long enough to spend it. I believe that I can hang in for the next 12 years and then retire with a fat account. I'll be 48... [snipped] One guy, especially many guys, can be the motivating force which start the ball rolling and get NATCA and trade groups involved. You mean like PATCO? NATCA is working at it. How hard I can't say as staffing is irrelavant to me right now, has been my whole career. Staffing seems to be irrelevent for most FAA towers/terminals that I am aware of. They have people. NATCA is 60% tower/terminal controllers and they have tended to focus on tower/terminal issues. That's why privatization is such a bugaboo for them- they recognize that FAA is on a slippery slope after the Contract Tower program and that *all* of the towers could be on the block at the stroke of a pen. That's a threat to their main constituency. It doesn't take any imagination with Boeing ATC waiting in the wings to see that the ATCSCC and all of the ARTCC's could follow... Chip, ZTL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:04:31 -0400, "Chip Jones"
wrote in Message-Id: : Staffing seems to be irrelevent for most FAA towers/terminals that I am aware of. They have people. NATCA is 60% tower/terminal controllers and they have tended to focus on tower/terminal issues. That's why privatization is such a bugaboo for them- they recognize that FAA is on a slippery slope after the Contract Tower program and that *all* of the towers could be on the block at the stroke of a pen. That's a threat to their main constituency. What sort of union is afraid of organizing private sector workers? If NATCA was a true labor organization, they would ATTRACT contract tower personnel as new members by the fair wages, professional working conditions, and job safety they could effect. If they can't attract private sector members, NATCA needs to rethink its role. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote: What sort of union is afraid of organizing private sector workers? If NATCA was a true labor organization, they would ATTRACT contract tower personnel as new members by the fair wages, professional working conditions, and job safety they could effect. If they can't attract private sector members, NATCA needs to rethink its role. I remember them talking about organizing the contract towers. Not being a union member I don't get the propaganda so not sure where that issue stands. I know supervisors can become members and also some or all of the office staff. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:04:31 -0400, "Chip Jones" wrote in Message-Id: : Staffing seems to be irrelevent for most FAA towers/terminals that I am aware of. They have people. NATCA is 60% tower/terminal controllers and they have tended to focus on tower/terminal issues. That's why privatization is such a bugaboo for them- they recognize that FAA is on a slippery slope after the Contract Tower program and that *all* of the towers could be on the block at the stroke of a pen. That's a threat to their main constituency. What sort of union is afraid of organizing private sector workers? If NATCA was a true labor organization, they would ATTRACT contract tower personnel as new members by the fair wages, professional working conditions, and job safety they could effect. If they can't attract private sector members, NATCA needs to rethink its role. LOL! PATCO (remember them?) is currently organizing private sector towers. They have the jump on NATCA, it seems... Chip, ZTL |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 02:55:50 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll
wrote: I guess it's true, some people just can't tell a joke. Actually, we make a matching pair: I can't tell one and you can't take one. :-) Morris (yes, that was another lame attempt at a joke) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:08:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
wrote in Message-Id: : Larry Dighera wrote: How would the FAA issue an AD against defective parts that lack an official paper-trail documenting the materials, processes, and companies involved in their manufacture? How does the CPSC (or the mfrs) issue a recall against consumer goods that lack the FAA's mandated paper-trail? They seem to manage. The companies involved even seem to do more for the consumer. Let's take an example. I purchased a baby swing at a garage sale. A few months later, I was checking the CPSC web site and saw a recall on what looked like my make and model of swing. I called the mfr's 800 number given in the recall notice. They asked me for the product numbers and told me where they would be marked on the swing. These numbers enabled them to determine that my swing indeed was involved in the recall. They then took my name and address and sent me, at no charge, a kit to modify my swing which IMHO actually did make it a better, safer, more useable product. Gosh -- no expensive FAA mandated official paper trail, and this recall bit still worked. If the FAA mandated paper-trail from raw material to finished part is unnecessary, why do you think it was made it a requirement? Now let's take the pending Superior air parts piston pin AD which was pending a few years back when we bought our plane. Per engine log, the relevant part had been installed in my plane during engine overhaul 7 years ago. But for various reasons, I had my doubts. I called the engine overhauler, who by FAA mandate is required to maintain a paper trail, and asked about the overhaul records. They weren't very willing to talk to me, and finally allowed as how the FAA only requires the records to be kept for 3 yrs so those records were gone. (They claimed flood damage after a hurricaine. FL company. Maybe). Here's the punch line: when one of the cylinders was pulled due to a valve problem, *the piston pin which came out was made by an entirely different manufacturer*. Since then we've lost 2 more cylinders (Nuchrome Cermicrap), and each one has a different piston pin. Once bitten by such a lack of records, an aircraft owner soon learns to obtain copies of repair records AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, and files them with the aircraft log books. The IA is required by FAA to document all the parts used. Wow, that FAA mandated paper trail really helped me out, heh heh. If you (or the previous owner of your airplane) had kept a record of the parts installed, it would have been possible for you to KNOW if they were among those that were recalled. I fail to see how your failure to keep a copy of the records reflects poorly on the FAA mandated record keeping practices. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote
If the FAA mandated paper-trail from raw material to finished part is unnecessary, why do you think it was made it a requirement? Because it sounds good in theory while completely failing to achieve the stated goals in practice? Because the FAA is staffed by a bunch of useless bloody loonies? Because bureaucrats just like paperwork? The correct answer is all of the above. Once bitten by such a lack of records, an aircraft owner soon learns to obtain copies of repair records AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, and files them with the aircraft log books. What percentage of aircraft valued in less than six figures do you suppose have such records? Intent is irrelevant - all that matters is what really happens in real life. Michael |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:08:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli wrote in Message-Id: : How does the CPSC (or the mfrs) issue a recall against consumer goods that lack the FAA's mandated paper-trail? They seem to manage. The companies involved even seem to do more for the consumer. Gosh -- no expensive FAA mandated official paper trail, and this recall bit still worked. If the FAA mandated paper-trail from raw material to finished part is unnecessary, why do you think it was made it a requirement? This would be pure speculation on my part, but my guess is that with the advent of computerized manufacturing and records keeping, many more manufactured parts are routinely trackable by mfring location, date, and lot than was the case when the regulations were written. Now let's take the pending Superior air parts piston pin AD which was pending a few years back when we bought our plane. Per engine log, the relevant part had been installed in my plane during engine overhaul 7 years ago. But for various reasons, I had my doubts. ... Here's the punch line: when one of the cylinders was pulled due to a valve problem, *the piston pin which came out was made by an entirely different manufacturer*. Once bitten by such a lack of records, an aircraft owner soon learns to obtain copies of repair records AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION, and files them with the aircraft log books. The IA is required by FAA to document all the parts used. Um, Larry: either you didn't read the post you're responding to very carefully, or you totally missed the point. The parts used were documented in the logs. There were copies of some repair records The documentation was incorrect. It reflected the installation of a part which was not, in fact, installed. If you (or the previous owner of your airplane) had kept a record of the parts installed, it would have been possible for you to KNOW if they were among those that were recalled. I fail to see how your failure to keep a copy of the records reflects poorly on the FAA mandated record keeping practices. Hello, Larry: where did you get this notion that "failure to keep a copy of the records" was the issue here? The point is, the FAA paper trail doesn't do a thing to improve the quality of the work or to prevent simple human error, such as logging piston pins from Mfr A as being installed while in fact reaching into the parts box for Mfr B. Will you 'get it' this time? Sydney |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|