Re: Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush? (ATC Privatization)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> A 40% decrease in payroll costs is a significant savings.
>

Sure, but most of the savings does not come from contracting out the tower,
it came from reducing the staffing. If four contract controllers can
adequately staff the tower then four FAA controllers could have done so as
well.


>
> Do you have
> any idea what motivates FAA to overstaffed towers?
>

None.


>
> Are you saying that ATC employees automatically receive a salary
> increase as a direct result of being relocated to another facility?
>

No, they receive a salary increase as a direct result of being relocated to
a higher level facility.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A 40% decrease in payroll costs is a significant savings.
> >
>
> Sure, but most of the savings does not come from contracting out the
tower,
> it came from reducing the staffing. If four contract controllers can
> adequately staff the tower then four FAA controllers could have done so as
> well.
>
Except it's more expensive and more rigid to employ regular types,
especially during varying conditions.
>
> >
> > Do you have
> > any idea what motivates FAA to overstaffed towers?
> >
>
> None.

Empire building. Baseline budgeting. Propping the union.

Think harder.

> > Are you saying that ATC employees automatically receive a salary
> > increase as a direct result of being relocated to another facility?
> >
>
> No, they receive a salary increase as a direct result of being relocated
to
> a higher level facility.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> Except it's more expensive and more rigid to employ regular types,
> especially during varying conditions.
>

What the hell are you talking about?


>
> Empire building. Baseline budgeting. Propping the union.
>

What the hell are you talking about?


>
> Think harder.
>

Think. Period.

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Since the topic was motivations of the FAA, if you repost the whole
thing,
> > not just excerpts, then maybe you can tell what was being discussed.
> >
>
> If you would post in complete, coherent sentences users of this forum
could
> understand your messages.
>
If you wouldn't chop things out to hide your ignorance, you'd see the
context.

Is your tantrum indicative of pilots nowadays?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> If you wouldn't chop things out to hide your ignorance, you'd see the
> context.
>

I leave that which I'm responding to in for continuity and context,
everything else is removed.


>
> Is your tantrum indicative of pilots nowadays?
>

You've got me confused with some other poster.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:26:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
k.net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> A 40% decrease in payroll costs is a significant savings.
>>
>
>Sure, but most of the savings does not come from contracting out the tower,
>it came from reducing the staffing. If four contract controllers can
>adequately staff the tower then four FAA controllers could have done so as
>well.
>
>
>>
>> Do you have
>> any idea what motivates FAA to overstaffed towers?
>>
>
>None.
>
>
>>
>> Are you saying that ATC employees automatically receive a salary
>> increase as a direct result of being relocated to another facility?
>>
>
>No, they receive a salary increase as a direct result of being relocated to
>a higher level facility.
>

Here's some recent news on the subject:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_airports_story.jsp?id=news/twr07083.xml
Contract Tower Battle: 71 Airports
By Airports Staff
July 8, 2003


The Contract Tower Association wants FAA to retain the authority to
privatize VFR operations at another 71 airports while protecting the
status of the 218 towers currently privatized, Spencer Dickerson,
executive director of the association, said last month.

Dickerson, who also serves as senior executive vice president of the
American Association of Airport Executives, outlined his concerns
recently at a press luncheon in Washington. His comments come as the
Bush administration threatens to veto the fiscal 2004 FAA
authorization if provisions barring any further ATC privatization are
not removed (Airports, June 24).

Other goals include the appropriation of $82.5 million to fund the
contract tower program next year and another $6.5 million to continue
the cost-sharing program, in which airports that do not fully meet
FAA's cost-benefit formula can make up the difference to trigger
privatization.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association suit against contract
towers is now in its ninth year. NATCA has always been concerned about
privatization expanding further into air traffic control, which is the
underlying issue in the dispute between the Bush administration and
the non-privatization provisions in the Senate FAA reauthorization,
proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). Dickerson, however, said
that CTA's goal is not to gradually "chip away" at government-run air
traffic control. CTA's interest is in preserving that option for the
71 airports, he said, in the event the airports are interested and FAA
deems an application appropriate.

Part of NATCA's argument has been the success of FAA's controllers in
rapidly and safely landing thousands of aircraft after the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11. Dickerson acknowledged that feat but said there
were "hundreds of contract-tower controllers who also guided planes
that day." He added that contract towers handle President Bush's
flights at Waco, Texas, and Vice President Dick Cheney's into Jackson
Hole, Wyo. Dickerson cited reports from the DOT Inspector General's
office endorsing the cost-effectiveness and safety of the program, and
said the numbers show that their safety record is "extremely good."

Dickerson also pointed out that the 17 largest contract towers handle
more traffic than the 15 smallest FAA towers.

NATCA, which opposes any further privatization, criticizes the record
of privatization in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. NATCA
describes those "experiments" with privatization as "at best,
financial messes and, at worst, safety hazards."

Ruth Marlin, NATCA executive vice president, told Airports that "just"
71 airports "is a fairly major invasion" of privatization. Those
airports also consist of what used to be called Level 2 and Level 3
facilities, she said --larger, more complex operations than those that
have already entered the contract tower program.

Marlin said NATCA is not opposed to all contract towers. Of the 218
now privatized, 90 are run under the cost-sharing program, "and
legitimately those towers are airports that otherwise would not have a
tower," she said.

Asked whether NATCA anticipates having to fight the expansion of
privatization every year, Marlin pointed to easy passage of amendments
attached to FAA reauthorizations in the House and Senate backing
NATCA's position on privatization.

"I think once this [FAA] reauthorization passes, it will be clear that
those who are elected to speak for the American people, spoke."

[Larry Dighera]

Here's an update on the FAA reauthorization bill. It would seem, that
for NATCA it's all about losing membership dues revenue:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 31b July 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL IN THE INTERPRETATION: SAME BILL PROMPTS GLEE, DISMAY
On Monday, AVweb told you that the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA) was thrilled with the latest version of the FAA
reauthorization bill now working its way through Congress. Yesterday,
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) had a
different take: "Aviation Safety Up For Sale To The Lowest Bidder,"
read the headline on their press release, which said the bill would
allow the FAA to hire part-time contractors to run dozens of towers.
Yesterday's report from AOPA saw things differently: "House, Senate
conferees prohibit ATC privatization," it read.


On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:53:56 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>
>Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 24 June 13, 2003
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> ==> GA NEWS <==
>
> BUSH ADMINISTRATION THREATENS TO VETO FAA FUNDING BILL
> The White House is threatening to veto the FAA reauthorization
> bill because it would prohibit the FAA from privatizing air
> traffic control.The bill, approved by the U.S. House of
> Representatives on Wednesday, includes language from Rep. James
> Oberstar (D-Minn.) that would prohibit outsourcing ATC to the
> private sector. "The administration's tough stance
> leaves nothing to the imagination of those of us in aviation who
> fear a privately run air traffic system--not to mention the
> airline control of such--and the fees that would go with
> privatization," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "It's clear what
> their agenda really is." But the bill does include several
> AOPA-backed provisions that address issues of interest
> to general aviation pilots, including a fix for the "pilot
> insecurity rule," the Meigs Field legacy provision that would
> protect airports from sudden closure, and a requirement to justify
> the Washington Metropolitan Air Defense Identification Zone
> (ADIZ). Meanwhile, AOPA worked hard Thursday afternoon to get
> antiprivatization language passed in the Senate by supporting an
> amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). That
> amendment was passed 56 to 41. For more, see AOPA Online
> ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-2-194.html ).

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Ryan Dorosh]

Canada has a private, non profit ATC called NavCanada. So far it's worked
out quite well going from public to private. NavCanada has some of the best
equipment and software in the world now. Way ahead of the rest of the world
for technology. Sometimes, I think having ATC in the hands of a non profit
group is the best way to go. Less hurdles to make beneficial changes.

--
Thank You,
Ryan
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Here's an update on the FAA reauthorization bill. It would seem, that
> for NATCA it's all about losing membership dues revenue:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 9, Number 31b July 30, 2003
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ALL IN THE INTERPRETATION: SAME BILL PROMPTS GLEE, DISMAY
> On Monday, AVweb told you that the General Aviation Manufacturers
> Association (GAMA) was thrilled with the latest version of the FAA
> reauthorization bill now working its way through Congress. Yesterday,
> the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) had a
> different take: "Aviation Safety Up For Sale To The Lowest Bidder,"
> read the headline on their press release, which said the bill would
> allow the FAA to hire part-time contractors to run dozens of towers.
> Yesterday's report from AOPA saw things differently: "House, Senate
> conferees prohibit ATC privatization," it read.
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:53:56 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >
> >Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush?
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 24 June 13, 2003
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ==> GA NEWS <==
> >
> > BUSH ADMINISTRATION THREATENS TO VETO FAA FUNDING BILL
> > The White House is threatening to veto the FAA reauthorization
> > bill because it would prohibit the FAA from privatizing air
> > traffic control.The bill, approved by the U.S. House of
> > Representatives on Wednesday, includes language from Rep. James
> > Oberstar (D-Minn.) that would prohibit outsourcing ATC to the
> > private sector. "The administration's tough stance
> > leaves nothing to the imagination of those of us in aviation who
> > fear a privately run air traffic system--not to mention the
> > airline control of such--and the fees that would go with
> > privatization," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "It's clear what
> > their agenda really is." But the bill does include several
> > AOPA-backed provisions that address issues of interest
> > to general aviation pilots, including a fix for the "pilot
> > insecurity rule," the Meigs Field legacy provision that would
> > protect airports from sudden closure, and a requirement to justify
> > the Washington Metropolitan Air Defense Identification Zone
> > (ADIZ). Meanwhile, AOPA worked hard Thursday afternoon to get
> > antiprivatization language passed in the Senate by supporting an
> > amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). That
> > amendment was passed 56 to 41. For more, see AOPA Online
> > ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-2-194.html ).
>
> --
>
> Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

[AJ]

As my dear old dad used to say: The masses are asses and always elect
the government they richly deserve.

[Chip Jones]

"Ryan Dorosh" > wrote in message
...
> Canada has a private, non profit ATC called NavCanada. So far it's worked
> out quite well going from public to private.

To me the question is worked out quite well for whom, exactly? The Canadian
government? The Canadian air transport industry? NavCanada's management?

>NavCanada has some of the best
> equipment and software in the world now. Way ahead of the rest of the
world
> for technology.

LOL! Way ahead of the rest of the world on technology. Specifically, what
technology? Terminal? Weather? Radar systems? GPS? The single American
State of California alone has more air traffic than all of Canada's
provinces combined. No offense, but Canada's miniscule air traffic load
isn't even in the same league as the volume and complexity that flies
through the US system.

Effective August 1, 2003, NavCanada will be increasing air navigation
service fees (read ATC user fees) by 6.9 %. NavCanada claims that this 6.9%
hike is due to a revenue shortfall tied to a 10.5 % decrease in traffic
during FY 2002. Third quarter revenues totalled C$225 million and operating
expenses C$183 million. Prior to its filing for bankruptcy protection
earlier this year in 2003, Air Canada Airlines and her affiliates owed
NavCanada C$45 million in unpaid ATC user fees. NavCanada claims that the
new rates will be, on average, "only" 4% higher than the old pricing
structure. Meanwhile, Air Canada calls the August 1st ATC user fees
increase "completely out of touch with industry realities" and said it would
pursue "any available option to reverse the decision".

It sounds to me like NavCanada is running the remaining major national
commercial user right on out of the airline business.

>Sometimes, I think having ATC in the hands of a non profit
> group is the best way to go. Less hurdles to make beneficial changes.
>

You base this opinion on NavCanada, Britain's NATS, Switzerland's SkyGuard,
or what? And what "beneficial" changes do you refer to? Air Canada
certainly doesn't seem too happy...

Chip, ZTL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ryan Dorosh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Canada has a private, non profit ATC called NavCanada. So far it's worked
> out quite well going from public to private. NavCanada has some of the
best
> equipment and software in the world now. Way ahead of the rest of the
world
> for technology. Sometimes, I think having ATC in the hands of a non profit
> group is the best way to go. Less hurdles to make beneficial changes.
>

US ATC is in the hands of a non-profit group now.

[Newps]

Chip Jones wrote:


>
> Effective August 1, 2003, NavCanada will be increasing air navigation
> service fees (read ATC user fees) by 6.9 %.

At the annual Schafer work party two weekends ago the manager of
Edmonton Tower was there in his Piper Dakota. Their acquisition rules
are much better than ours. If they need something they go to the store
and buy it. No red tape. The controller workweek just increased from
32 hours per week to 36 hours due to the budget shortfall. Their towers
are glass cockpits. No paper strips, drop tubes, etc. It's all touch
screen, the FAA is building a new tower here in BIL starting this fall,
it would be nice to have some of that stuff. The user fees for an
airplane that is 5000 pounds or less is a flat $60 Canadian per year.
In the grand scheme of things that is nothing, I pay more than that to
the state of Montana each year for my "tabs". Having said all that I
still wouldn't want their whole system, just parts of it.

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Jul 2003 10:26:24 -0700, (AJ) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>As my dear old dad used to say: The masses are asses and always elect
>the government they richly deserve.

I always say, ~50% of the population possesses a 2-digit IQ.


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:12:03 -0400, "Chip Jones"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Prior to its filing for bankruptcy protection
>earlier this year in 2003, Air Canada Airlines and her affiliates owed
>NavCanada C$45 million in unpaid ATC user fees.

This is troubling. Now Canadian ATC is a financial lender. Is that
appropriate? Doubtful.

If the cause of the 6.9% hike in Canadian user fees is due to Air
Canada Airlines and her affiliates owing C$45 million to NavCanada, it
is the users of the system who are ultimately financing the airline.

The beauty of the current system of collecting tax based, US ATC
funding is, that it grounds the airline when they are unable to meet
their fuel bills. It also collects an amount form each user
PROPORTIONAL to their use of ATC services and facilities. A flat
annual fee changes the rules of the game entirely.

>It sounds to me like NavCanada is running the remaining major national
>commercial user right on out of the airline business.

It sounds to me like NavCanada inappropriately enabled that airline to
avoid bankruptcy for an extended period.

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Judah]

50%? I thought it was part of Demorgan's Law (80-20 rule)?


Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On 30 Jul 2003 10:26:24 -0700, (AJ) wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>
>>As my dear old dad used to say: The masses are asses and always elect
>>the government they richly deserve.
>
> I always say, ~50% of the population possesses a 2-digit IQ.
>
>

[Chip Jones]

"Ryan Dorosh" > wrote in message
...
> 30"x30" Sony flat, touch panels. No need for paper strips. Like the one
user
> above said it's all touch glass equipment in the tower cabs and
> terminals/IFR. The new Atlantic GAATS system. From what I've read, it's
some
> of the best ATC technology around. And it all happened after going
private -
> in a matter of a few years I might add. They built new towers at quite a
few
> airports and installed new radar systems across the country. As a pilot I
> have no complaints other than they stripped down FSS service.
>
>

No need for paper strips... that says it all.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:12:03 -0400, "Chip Jones"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
[snipped]

>
> >It sounds to me like NavCanada is running the remaining major national
> >commercial user right on out of the airline business.
>
> It sounds to me like NavCanada inappropriately enabled that airline to
> avoid bankruptcy for an extended period.
>

Isn't Air Canada THE national/international Canadian airline? As in: the
Canadian government and the nation of Canada have a vested interest in
keeping ACA afloat for national reasons? What happens to Canada's economy
if ACA goes under? Serious questions here too- I know squat about Canada's
airline situation except that Air Canada is the major game in town...

Chip, ZTL

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:54:04 GMT, Newps > wrote in
Message-Id: <wp0Wa.15560$Oz4.5543@rwcrnsc54>:

>The user fees for an airplane that is 5000 pounds or less is a flat
>$60 Canadian per year. In the grand scheme of things that is nothing,
>I pay more than that to the state of Montana each year for my "tabs".

Have you any idea what you pay into the Aviation Trust Fund via
aviation fuel taxes annually?

>Having said all that I still wouldn't want their whole system,
>just parts of it.

My fear is that a privatized US ATC would be like putting the fox in
charge of the henhouse, because it will likely be run by airline
industry airplane manufacturer(s). I would have a hard time believing
Boeing or LockMart, or ... could reframe from influencing the redesign
the NAS to suit their customers' requests at the expense of the equity
with which GA is afforded in today's NAS.

Here's some supporting information about that notion:


----------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 5, Issue 31 August 1, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------

AOPA PROTECTS PILOT INTERESTS IN FAA NAVIGATION PLAN
The FAA has put out its roadmap for the future of aerial
navigation, and the bottom line for general aviation pilots is
that today's avionics equipment will continue to serve GA pilots
well into the future, thanks to AOPA advocacy. The Roadmap for
Performance-Based Navigation is an air carrier-driven plan to
tighten navigation tolerances and increase airspace capacity. It
creates a system in which an aircraft must meet specific avionics
capabilities (Required Navigation Performance or RNP) to use
airways and arrival and departure procedures in busy terminal
airspace (Class B). AOPA battled to make sure that VFR aircraft
would be exempted from RNP requirements, that IFR aircraft could
participate using today's IFR-certified GPS receivers, and that
RNP would provide benefits for GA pilots. See (
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-3-046x.html ).

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2003 10:26:24 -0700, (AJ) wrote in
>> Message-Id: >:
>>
>>>As my dear old dad used to say: The masses are asses and always elect
>>>the government they richly deserve.
>>
>> I always say, ~50% of the population possesses a 2-digit IQ.
>>

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:06:44 GMT, Judah > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>50%? I thought it was part of Demorgan's Law (80-20 rule)?

What made you think that?

http://www.cs.iupui.edu/~ddillow/N301/deMorgan.html
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:37:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>I was under the impression that Larry was referring to the fact that a 100
>IQ is supposed to be a person of "normal" intelligence. That is, right at
>the middle of the bell curve. Thus, half the population will have a lower
>IQ, and half will have a higher one.

Written by someone who obviously possesses a 3-digit IQ. :-)


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:54:04 GMT, Newps > wrote in
> Message-Id: <wp0Wa.15560$Oz4.5543@rwcrnsc54>:
>
>
>>The user fees for an airplane that is 5000 pounds or less is a flat
>>$60 Canadian per year. In the grand scheme of things that is nothing,
>>I pay more than that to the state of Montana each year for my "tabs".
>
>
> Have you any idea what you pay into the Aviation Trust Fund via
> aviation fuel taxes annually?

Yep. Zip. Although I do build more than my fair share of the
interstate highway system.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "RKHenry"
> wrote:

> and
> 80% of usenet acrimony is caused by 20% of the postings.
> (Which implies that 80% of usenet postings are informative and useful.)

or ignored.

--
Bob Noel

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Ryan Dorosh wrote:
> 30"x30" Sony flat, touch panels. No need for paper strips.

If there aren't any non-computer-based flight records, what
happens if the power glitches or the computer goes on the fritz?

Cheers,
Sydney (computer user who has learnt the hard way to Keep Paper Copies)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
>
> If there aren't any non-computer-based flight records, what
> happens if the power glitches or the computer goes on the fritz?
>

Well, if that happens, flight data is lost.

[Newps]

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
> Ryan Dorosh wrote:
>
>> 30"x30" Sony flat, touch panels. No need for paper strips.
>
>
> If there aren't any non-computer-based flight records, what
> happens if the power glitches or the computer goes on the fritz?

All facilities have their own back up power, usually a giant diesel
generator. We turn ours on anytime there is lightening in the area.
Although it is set up to come on automatically if the commercial power
goes out, that power bump will make all the computers reset, so we would
lose our data for about 30 seconds. There is more than one computer so
if one goes belly up it really doesn't matter.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:9lFWa.45649$YN5.36844@sccrnsc01...
>
> All facilities have their own back up power, usually a giant diesel
> generator. We turn ours on anytime there is lightening in the area.
> Although it is set up to come on automatically if the commercial power
> goes out, that power bump will make all the computers reset, so we would
> lose our data for about 30 seconds. There is more than one computer so
> if one goes belly up it really doesn't matter.
>

Yeah. And a DC-10 cannot lose all hydraulic power.

[David Megginson]

Sydney Hoeltzli > writes:

> If there aren't any non-computer-based flight records, what happens
> if the power glitches or the computer goes on the fritz?

Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
There are a lot more critical things that ATC that don't keep paper
copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.

I don't know if privatization would work in the U.S., but I am another
mostly-happy Nav Canada user. The fee really is small in the greater
scheme of things, and the service is good. Our local controllers
actually sponsored a contest last year to encourage small planes to do
*more* circuits at CYOW (Ottawa), a busy class C international airport
with lots of airliner traffic (in contrast, the airport authority
would be happy to see our tailfins disappearing into the sunset, so
that they could let developers build revenue-producing hotels on the
north GA field).


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
> There are a lot more critical things that ATC that don't keep paper
> copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.
>

Like what?

[H. Adam Stevens]

the sun continues to produce light
for now





"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
> > There are a lot more critical things that ATC that don't keep paper
> > copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.
> >
>
> Like what?
>
>

[David Megginson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

>> Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
>> There are a lot more critical things that ATC that don't keep paper
>> copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.
>
> Like what?

Missile guidance systems.

Most government records about you.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[David Megginson]

David Megginson > writes:

> This doesn't make syntactic sense as it stands, until you correct the
> first "that" to "than":
>
> Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
> There are a lot more critical things that ATC than don't keep paper
> copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.

One more try -- this one seems to be jinxed:

Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
There are a lot more critical things than ATC that don't keep paper
copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, I understand what happened -- sorry. There was a one-letter typo
> in the original message that might have confused this thread. I wrote
>
> Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
> There are a lot more critical things that ATC that don't keep paper
> copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.
>
> This doesn't make syntactic sense as it stands, until you correct the
> first "that" to "than":
>
> Hopefully, they have a bit of redundancy built into their system.
> There are a lot more critical things that ATC than don't keep paper
> copies any more, if you want anything to worry about tonight.
>

It still doesn't make sense. Did you mean, "There are a lot more critical
things than ATC that don't keep paper copies any more, if you want anything
to worry about tonight"?

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> It still doesn't make sense. Did you mean, "There are a lot more critical
> things than ATC that don't keep paper copies any more, if you want anything
> to worry about tonight"?

I think that's what he meant.

I'm not sure I'd agree though.

There are several different types of criticality. Most gov't
records are critical, but in a long-term sense. If the computer
they're stored on glitches, there's generally time to order
a new hard drive, install it, and restore the data from back up
storage. Come back in 3 days.

ATC data isn't critical in a long-term sense, but it's time
critical. By the time someone loads the back-up data, the
whole real-time picture has changed and we'll be having close
encounters of the aluminum kind.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Chip Jones]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:nmPWa.33207$cF.12149@rwcrnsc53...
>
>
> Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>
> > ATC data isn't critical in a long-term sense, but it's time
> > critical. By the time someone loads the back-up data, the
> > whole real-time picture has changed and we'll be having close
> > encounters of the aluminum kind.
>
> Nobody has to load anything. A few times a year the commercial power
> hiccups. When that happens you hear those ugly powering down sounds.
> Then the backup power comes online, then everything resets and you are
> back to where you were. Whole deal might last 10-15 seconds but it
> seems like forever if you have a lot of traffic. No data is lost in
> this process.
>

Power failures aren't the only threat to ATC systems. I have been involved
in three total radar failures in my career as an enroute controller. The
shortest one lasted for a minute, the longest for over 30 minutes. During
those times, the flight data strips are the *only* game in town. No strips
and no data means chaos even if you can talk to the airplanes. Mention this
to engineers and contractors like Boeing who are spinning their sale of a
"paperless" ATC system because its the "latest" thing and they will tell you
that the system they will build will fail so rarely that it will *almost*
always be reliable. "Hey man, get with the times. Strips are for
dinosaurs. All of the cool privatized ATC companies have done away with
strips. If it works for their [insert tiny and miniscule total traffic
count] ATC operation, we can make it work for America. Just show us the
money and we'll get started on that contract right away!"

I have never understood why we are trying to move everything these days to a
"paperless" environment. Why? That may work at Walmart, or in the cockpit
of a well-equipped airplane (I bet they still carry charts...) but it is a
*bad* idea for enroute ATC no matter how "cutting edge" the technology gets.


Chip, ZTL

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Newps wrote:

> Nobody has to load anything. A few times a year the commercial power
> hiccups. When that happens you hear those ugly powering down sounds.
> Then the backup power comes online, then everything resets and you are
> back to where you were. Whole deal might last 10-15 seconds but it
> seems like forever if you have a lot of traffic. No data is lost in
> this process.

Newps,

I work at a major medical center. We have emergency power, backed
by redundant generators. It's set up so that if it works as it should,
there aren't any "ugly powering-down sounds", it just comes on. If
the backup generator fails to report to work, there may be a little
glitch before the backup-backup comes online.

Nevertheless, there have been situations where it did not work as
it should, and we have heard ugly powering-down sounds (the truly
essential stuff, like respirators and incubators, have a short-term
battery backup).

I understand what you're saying about how the system is supposed to
work.

My point is that sometimes, for reasonably forseeable circumstances,
the system doesn't work as it's supposed to.

Best,
Sydney

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:nmPWa.33207$cF.12149@rwcrnsc53...
>
>
> Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>
> > ATC data isn't critical in a long-term sense, but it's time
> > critical. By the time someone loads the back-up data, the
> > whole real-time picture has changed and we'll be having close
> > encounters of the aluminum kind.
>
> Nobody has to load anything. A few times a year the commercial power
> hiccups. When that happens you hear those ugly powering down sounds.
> Then the backup power comes online, then everything resets and you are
> back to where you were. Whole deal might last 10-15 seconds but it
> seems like forever if you have a lot of traffic. No data is lost in
> this process.

Damn, we run our 24/7 order entry system from conditioned power/battery
packs which means if the power burps, or even goes down for several minutes,
no one in the computer room would even know. I'd say ordering products is
less critical than ATC's services.

[Tom S.]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
>
> I work at a major medical center. We have emergency power, backed
> by redundant generators. It's set up so that if it works as it should,
> there aren't any "ugly powering-down sounds", it just comes on. If
> the backup generator fails to report to work, there may be a little
> glitch before the backup-backup comes online.

You should be running from conditioned power/batteries ALL THE TIME and the
backup generators should then keep the CPS charged until the regular juice
starts flowing.
>
> Nevertheless, there have been situations where it did not work as
> it should, and we have heard ugly powering-down sounds (the truly
> essential stuff, like respirators and incubators, have a short-term
> battery backup).

A few years ago, most of the west had a blackout that lasted several hours.
It's amazing how many critical (at leazst business critical) sites have only
battery backup to allow for graceful shutdown.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> Whole deal might last 10-15 seconds but it
> seems like forever if you have a lot of traffic. No data is lost in
> this process.

Do it the way the phone company does. Everything runs off of battery. If
the commercial power feed fails and the diesels have to kick in, there's
no discontinuity of service.

Now, every once in a while a substation goes down and nobody notices
(happens once in about 50 years or so). In that case, somebody loses
service after about two days. Think ATC would notice a problem by then?

There is one practical difference. The phone company is running off of
48 volt DC, and ATC is using standard AC (I presume). Still shouldn't be
a problem for a decent engineer.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Newps]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Newps wrote:
>
>>Whole deal might last 10-15 seconds but it
>>seems like forever if you have a lot of traffic. No data is lost in
>>this process.
>
>
> Do it the way the phone company does. Everything runs off of battery. If
> the commercial power feed fails and the diesels have to kick in, there's
> no discontinuity of service.

We would do that if it were needed.

>
> Now, every once in a while a substation goes down and nobody notices
> (happens once in about 50 years or so). In that case, somebody loses
> service after about two days. Think ATC would notice a problem by then?

The generators already come online on automatically, we have one for the
tower itself and one for the radar.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Chip Jones"
> wrote:

> I have never understood why we are trying to move everything these days
> to a
> "paperless" environment. Why? That may work at Walmart, or in the
> cockpit
> of a well-equipped airplane (I bet they still carry charts...) but it is
> a
> *bad* idea for enroute ATC no matter how "cutting edge" the technology
> gets.

That's exactly the user pushback we got around 1995 when considering
electronic strips for STARS. Most of the controllers we dealted with
wanted nothing to do with them.

--
Bob Noel

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, every once in a while a substation goes down and nobody notices
> > (happens once in about 50 years or so). In that case, somebody loses
> > service after about two days. Think ATC would notice a problem by then?
>
> The generators already come online on automatically, we have one for the
> tower itself and one for the radar.

With the phone company, the unmanned substations run from commercial power
(where available) with battery backup. If one goes down, an alert sounds
at local Central Office. If it stays down, someone goes out with a portable
generator to keep the station up. The only time I heard of the system failing
was ten years or so back in Brooklyn (IIRC). They had a power outage, someone
shut off the alarms, but someone dropped the ball and never dispatched
the repair crew. The batteries died after two days, and one section of
the net went dead. Cost the phone company some outrageous sum because of
the loss of service to parts of the Wall Street community.

In the Central Offices, the generators kick in automatically.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Chip Jones]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Chip Jones"
> > wrote:
>
> > I have never understood why we are trying to move everything these days
> > to a
> > "paperless" environment. Why? That may work at Walmart, or in the
> > cockpit
> > of a well-equipped airplane (I bet they still carry charts...) but it is
> > a
> > *bad* idea for enroute ATC no matter how "cutting edge" the technology
> > gets.
>
> That's exactly the user pushback we got around 1995 when considering
> electronic strips for STARS. Most of the controllers we dealted with
> wanted nothing to do with them.
>

If you mean that most controllers don't seem to like dealing with paper
strips, I won't argue with you. Of course, many controllers that I know
don't like dealing with airplanes all that much anymore either, although
they all seem to like the paycheck...

The question to me is "why don't they?" Strips don't break. A person can
*easily* learn to write as accurately and as fast as one talks and with far
less effort than typing in data. Strips can be cocked out indicting things
that need to be done or things that have been done etc etc. Strips in a bay
representing overdue aircraft stand out like sore thumbs. Dunno why the hue
and cry that strips are obsolete. What are obsolete IMO are the archaic
flight data computers, not the strips.


Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:47:26 -0400, "Chip Jones"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Privatize ATC and GA is gonna be the first casualty... Terrible
>idea.

And it appears Jr. hasn't abandoned his "ideological jihad for
privatization":


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 42a October 13, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

....OHIO SENATOR WAFFLING...
A spokesman for DeWine admits the senator is reconsidering his
previous position. Mike Dawson told The Columbus Dispatch that the
senator must weigh whether the ban is worth risking all the funding in
the bill for Ohio airports and other provisions. According to the
Dispatch, DeWine still favors the privatization ban but he's not sure
he'd vote against the reauthorization bill if the current language
remains. Despite what must be enormous pressure from the White House
to change his vote, DeWine's fellow Ohio Republican George Voinovich
has apparently indicated to NATCA that he won't alter his position.
Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Lorain) accused the White House of mounting
an "ideological jihad for privatization" and said the public won't
stand for it in the case of air traffic control.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/138-full.html#185851
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 44b October 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA BILL AMENDED AGAIN
A conference committee of the House and Senate has agreed to strip
language relating to the privatization of 69 FAA control towers from
the long-delayed FAA Reauthorization Bill but privatization opponents
say that's not the end of the debate. The bill, which should have been
passed in September, has been held up over the privatization clause
and it's still not clear how the latest move will affect its passage.
FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the new conference report will likely
be put in front of the House today and passage is expected. But
passage by the Senate is expected to take longer and Martin said a
continuation of the current temporary spending authority, which
expires Friday, will almost certainly be required.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/143-full.html#185961

[Larry Dighera]

----------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Special Expo Update November 1, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE PASSES FAA FUNDING BILL
The House of Representatives on Thursday passed the FAA
reauthorization bill that had been bogged down in Congress over debate
about contract air traffic control towers and concerns over future
privatization of air traffic services. The bill was sent to the Senate
where action is pending, and continuing battles there are possible.
AOPA expressed concern over the FAA reauthorization bill after a
passage was deleted that opposed any future privatization of the air
traffic control system. The bill would provide $60 billion in funding
for airport upgrades, security enhancements, and safety programs. For
more information, see AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-4-080x.html )


On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:07:53 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>AVflash Volume 9, Number 44b October 30, 2003
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>FAA BILL AMENDED AGAIN
>A conference committee of the House and Senate has agreed to strip
>language relating to the privatization of 69 FAA control towers from
>the long-delayed FAA Reauthorization Bill but privatization opponents
>say that's not the end of the debate. The bill, which should have been
>passed in September, has been held up over the privatization clause
>and it's still not clear how the latest move will affect its passage.
>FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the new conference report will likely
>be put in front of the House today and passage is expected. But
>passage by the Senate is expected to take longer and Martin said a
>continuation of the current temporary spending authority, which
>expires Friday, will almost certainly be required.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/143-full.html#185961