Re: ATC stand and deliver? (was: O'Hare Controllers Raise Alarm, Blame Small Planes

[journeyman]

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)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"journeyman" > wrote in message
u.com...
>
> You already have a more than adequate supply of the stuff. :-)
>

Ya live in a cave?

[Chip Jones]

"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

[Larry Dighera]

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.

[Newps]

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.

[Chip Jones]

"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

[journeyman]

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)

[Larry Dighera]

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.

[Michael]

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

[Snowbird]

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

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 Jul 2003 13:50:37 -0700, (Michael) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote

[snip useless rant]

>> 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?

I would suppose that those aircraft whose owners' know the value of
keeping ALL the records have them.


>Intent is irrelevant - all that matters is what really happens in real life.

Of course that is incorrect.

>Michael

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2003 13:50:37 -0700, (Michael) wrote in
> Message-Id: >:
>>What percentage of aircraft valued in less than six figures do you
>>suppose have such records?

> I would suppose that those aircraft whose owners' know the value of
> keeping ALL the records have them.


Larry, out of curiousity, how many aircraft of what makes and models
have you owned or do you own?

Perhaps you've mentioned, but sorry, I don't recall at the moment.

Sydney

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:05:22 GMT, Sydney Hoeltzli
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2003 15:04:35 -0700, (Snowbird)
>> wrote in Message-Id:
>> >:
>
>> If you were charged with maintaining aviation safety, as the FAA
>> is/was, would you rely on a parts tracking system that you didn't
>> control?
>
>Well, now, here's the heart of the issue. If I were charged
>solely with maintaining aviation safety, no. I might not only
>want a parts tracking system I controlled, I might want all kinds
>of "I'm in Charge" stuff like ballistic parachutes and retrofit
>stall warning systems on old taildraggers. Damn the costs!

Amusing.

>Now suppose I'm charged with "promoting aviation" as well as
>maintaining aviation safety. There's a balancing act here
>between safety and affordability.

Unfortunately, cost is always an issue.

(Did the FAA's mission change occur under Reagan or Clinton?)

>>>>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.
>
>>>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.
>
>> That is one explanation. Another explanation for the discrepancy
>> between the part numbers in the logs and those you found installed is
>> that someone did some work subsequent to that in the logs, and failed
>> to enter it in the logs.
>
>Highly implausible. It was a low-time strong engine and there was
>no evidence that someone decided to disassemble 4 jugs and change
>the piston pins without logging it, and no plausible motivation
>for them to do so. The proposed AD only came out as I was considering
>buying the plane.

This additional information seems to support your analysis.

>I was raised to believe in Occum's Razor and not think of Zebras
>when I hear hoofbeats in the street; you?

I witnessed the scenario to which I alluded above. Prior experience
and a dearth of information prompted my suggestion that there may be
alternate exploitations for the facts you mentioned.

>Moreover, when the discrepancy was pointed out to the overhaul
>shop, the manager couldn't move fast enough to send me a letter
>stating that the part in question was not installed (insert
>relevant legal) to relieve me of the AD.

If I understand you correctly, the overhaul manager plead substituting
the pins to avoid the AD? And the implication being, that was
unreasonable due to a conflict in dates between the time of overhaul
and the issuance of the AD? I'm just struggling to _correctly_ infer
your implication.

[...]

>I stand by my point that the FAA's paperwork trail does nothing
>to improve the quality of mechanical work nor to protect the
>plane owner from human error.

Only innovative cleaver/creative design can attempt to save us from
human error. I haven't heard that FAA is guilty of that. :-) (NASA
on the other hand,...)

To the extent that the paper trail documents the work and source of
parts, and intimidates the mechanic into honestly doing his best, it
improves and protects. If it did not exist, how could ADs recall
parts? How could the FAA attempt to control/track gype/bogus parts?
I have a suspicion, that there's a very good reason for it. Perhaps
the shoddy results you perceive are a result of inadequate FAA
supervision and enforcement?

To the extent manufacturers exploit it economically, it is a burden.

>But, think whatcha like,

You have no idea.... :-)

>Sydney

[G.R. Patterson III]

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>
> Now suppose I'm charged with "promoting aviation" as well as
> maintaining aviation safety. There's a balancing act here
> between safety and affordability.

The FAA isn't charged with that anymore. That was removed from their mandate
during the Clinton administration.

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