Closed ATC center in SoCal?

[Mxsmanic]

Can someone here explain exactly what had to be closed or evacuated in
Southern California because of fires? The news talked about disruptions
of air traffic throughout the Pacific Southwest and a major ATC center
being put out of order, but no more detail that that. Which ATC center
was it, and where is it physically located?

Aren't ATC centers hardened or something so that they are relatively
protected against natural and unnatural problems? Heck, I'd expect them
to be built a lot like missile silos, so that they can continue to
operate under just about any conditions.

Can other centers take up the slack when this happens, or are certain
types of traffic simply impossible to manage if a given center goes off
the air?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Ron Natalie]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
> Can someone here explain exactly what had to be closed or evacuated in
> Southern California because of fires? The news talked about disruptions
> of air traffic throughout the Pacific Southwest and a major ATC center
> being put out of order, but no more detail that that. Which ATC center
> was it, and where is it physically located?
>
It isn't a center. It was the SoCal (SCT) Tracon. This description from their union site:

SoCal TRACON, the busiest approach control in the world, provides radar air traffic approach control
services to all arriving and departing aircraft for most airports in southern California. Airports receiving
SCT services include Burbank Airport, John Wayne Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Long
Beach Airport, March AFB, Miramar MCAS, North Island NAS, Ontario Airport, San Diego International
Airport, Van Nuys Airport and many more airports that service general aviation. SCT's airspace covers
an area from 20 miles north of Burbank to the US/Mexican border and from San Bernardino to Santa Catalina Island.

SCT is one of the FAA trends to merge together a bunch of approach controls which used to be located at the
major airport towers. There were 5 merged together here. The other major ones I know about are in New York
and the newly established one in DC.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:54:00 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Can someone here explain exactly what had to be closed or evacuated in
>Southern California because of fires?

SoCal TRACON.

>The news talked about disruptions
>of air traffic throughout the Pacific Southwest and a major ATC center
>being put out of order, but no more detail that that. Which ATC center
>was it, and where is it physically located?

SoCal TRACON is located adjacent to the Miramar Marine Corps Air
Station: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KNKX

>Aren't ATC centers hardened or something so that they are relatively
>protected against natural and unnatural problems? Heck, I'd expect them
>to be built a lot like missile silos, so that they can continue to
>operate under just about any conditions.

The building that houses SoCal TRACON is of conventional construction
with a brick facade and drywall clad partitions.

>Can other centers take up the slack when this happens, or are certain
>types of traffic simply impossible to manage if a given center goes off
>the air?

It is my understanding that Los Angeles Center is currently fulfilling
the duties of SoCal TRACON at reduced traffic counts.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> SCT is one of the FAA trends to merge together a bunch of approach
> controls which used to be located at the major airport towers. There
> were 5 merged together here. The other major ones I know about
> are in New York and the newly established one in DC.

Maybe the FAA should revisit that policy. Single nodes of failure
aren't always a good idea. I can understand it for ATC that is more or
less evenly dispersed over a large region, but I don't see that it's
such a good idea for ATC involving small areas like airports.
Logically, you'd want the latter very near the airport. If the airport
goes down, it doesn't matter if the ATC goes down--and if the airport is
still operating, than the ATC will probably be operating, too. But if
the two are very separated geographically, you end up with an airport
area with no ATC, which is a bad thing.

So who took over? Or did everything just stop?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> The building that houses SoCal TRACON is of conventional construction
> with a brick facade and drywall clad partitions.

So security guards have people taking off their shoes at every airport
in the U.S., while a single suicide bomber could knock out ATC for half
the Southwest? Is the government really looking in the right places for
vulnerabilities?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:56:54 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> SCT is one of the FAA trends to merge together a bunch of approach
>> controls which used to be located at the major airport towers. There
>> were 5 merged together here. The other major ones I know about
>> are in New York and the newly established one in DC.
>
>Maybe the FAA should revisit that policy. Single nodes of failure
>aren't always a good idea.

Agreed. Failure of a single decentralized facility impacts less
airspace.

>I can understand it for ATC that is more or less evenly dispersed over a large
>region, but I don't see that it's such a good idea for ATC involving small areas
>like airports.

SoCal TRACON only deals with approach and departure operations that
occur over an the area encompassing Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Riverside, Orange, Imperial, and San Diego counties.

>Logically, you'd want the latter very near the airport. If the airport
>goes down, it doesn't matter if the ATC goes down--and if the airport is
>still operating, than the ATC will probably be operating, too. But if
>the two are very separated geographically, you end up with an airport
>area with no ATC, which is a bad thing.
>
>So who took over?

Los Angeles Center is/was providing approach/departure control to LAX.

>Or did everything just stop?

Nope. It just reduced operations to about half.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:58:18 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> The building that houses SoCal TRACON is of conventional construction
>> with a brick facade and drywall clad partitions.
>
>So security guards have people taking off their shoes at every airport
>in the U.S., while a single suicide bomber could knock out ATC for half
>the Southwest?

Doubtful. Visitors to SoCal TRACON must present their ID at the guard
shack located some distance from the building proper.

As demonstrated by the current evacuation of SoCal TRACON, "ATC for
half of the southwest" is still in operation by other ATC facilities.

>Is the government really looking in the right places for
>vulnerabilities?

I believe they are trying the to the best of their _ability_. :-)

[Marco Leon]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> Larry Dighera writes:
>
> > The building that houses SoCal TRACON is of conventional construction
> > with a brick facade and drywall clad partitions.
>
> So security guards have people taking off their shoes at every airport
> in the U.S., while a single suicide bomber could knock out ATC for half
> the Southwest? Is the government really looking in the right places for
> vulnerabilities?

Different impact. Knocking down an airliner with a bomb will do as it is
intended and kill all on board. Aside from killing the people in the TRACON,
the cessation of air traffic control will not cause all the planes under its
control to come crashing down or into each other. They will find a way to
land VFR with a good chance of landing safely. Either that or deviate to
another manned sector or center.

Marco








Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Ron Natalie]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message ...
>
> Different impact. Knocking down an airliner with a bomb will do as it is
> intended and kill all on board. Aside from killing the people in the TRACON,
> the cessation of air traffic control will not cause all the planes under its
> control to come crashing down or into each other. They will find a way to
> land VFR with a good chance of landing safely. Either that or deviate to
> another manned sector or center.

Didn't you see Die Hard 2? ;-)

Actually, most of the Center's (and some of the non-tower based tracons) have
pretty good security. You can't get anywhere near the buildings at ZDC.

My favorite was that after the OKC bombings I think, they blocked off the parking
spaces (a significant loss in parking) in front of the Leesburgh AFSS. Security, right.
Someone might blow up the FSS. This would be a imperceptable blip in the nation's
transportation infrastructure as the 800 lines all failed over to Altoona. The biggest
threat these guys were in was that some stupid terrorist mistook them for ZDC down
the street. (The local media tends to do so regularly).

[Chip Jones]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
> > SCT is one of the FAA trends to merge together a bunch of approach
> > controls which used to be located at the major airport towers. There
> > were 5 merged together here. The other major ones I know about
> > are in New York and the newly established one in DC.
>
> Maybe the FAA should revisit that policy.

LOL, FAA is actively exploring ways to privatize the entire terminal system,
cashier the airways technicians who maintain the NAS infrastructure,
outsource the Flight Service Stations and shrink the 20 continental ARTCC's
into 3 mega facilities to save money. They can't be bothered by little
things like system redundancy, because it costs money. We need to run FAA
just like Enron and MCI, because American Government should work *exactly*
like any other "business". Afterall, we have to save every penny that we
can. We can rebuild Iraq, bail out the airline industy via corporate
welfare, and simulateneously give everyone that big tax cut if we just shave
some more off of aviation safety services.

>Single nodes of failure
> aren't always a good idea. I can understand it for ATC that is more or
> less evenly dispersed over a large region, but I don't see that it's
> such a good idea for ATC involving small areas like airports.
> Logically, you'd want the latter very near the airport. If the airport
> goes down, it doesn't matter if the ATC goes down--and if the airport is
> still operating, than the ATC will probably be operating, too. But if
> the two are very separated geographically, you end up with an airport
> area with no ATC, which is a bad thing.
>
> So who took over? Or did everything just stop?
>

Los Angeles ARTCC (ZLA) took over the airspace. There are contingency
procedures for the emergency closings of every ATC facility in the NAS.
These plans are pretty complicated. Basically, the ARTCC's own all of the
airspace. They delegate chunks of Center airspace to the various Tracons
and terminal facilities in order to expedite the handling of terminal
operations. In a Letter of Agreement between SCT and ZLA, there is likely a
contingency clause which spells out that ZLA retakes the airspace that they
delegated to SCT. In so doing, ZLA uses Center ARSR radar, which forces an
increase in the separation between aircraft from three miles to five miles.
This is causing a massive traffic delay in the SCT airspace, but least the
airspace isn't completely shut down.

Chip, ZTL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> LOL, FAA is actively exploring ways to privatize the entire terminal
> system, cashier the airways technicians who maintain the NAS
infrastructure,
> outsource the Flight Service Stations and shrink the 20 continental
> ARTCC's into 3 mega facilities to save money.
>

They are? What's your source for that?

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-10-27 09:49:05 -0800, (null) said:

> My favorite was that after the OKC bombings I think, they blocked off the parking
> spaces (a significant loss in parking) in front of the Leesburgh AFSS. Security, right.
> Someone might blow up the FSS.

My personal favorite is the amazingly heavy "security" at FSDOs these days, as if they were somehow vital to the continuing operation of the whole system.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Dave S]

Well.. he WORKS for them.. so maybe that counts for something...

Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>LOL, FAA is actively exploring ways to privatize the entire terminal
>>system, cashier the airways technicians who maintain the NAS
>
> infrastructure,
>
>>outsource the Flight Service Stations and shrink the 20 continental
>>ARTCC's into 3 mega facilities to save money.
>>
>
>
> They are? What's your source for that?
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Larry Fransson" > wrote in message t...

> My personal favorite is the amazingly heavy "security" at FSDOs these days, as if they were somehow
> vital to the continuing operation of the whole system.

Despite the official FAA paranoia, the DC FSDO at least didn't succumb. They were happy to deal
with walkins as long as you met with your inspector in the little conference table outside the office
area proper.

[Ron Natalie]

"Dave S" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Well.. he WORKS for them.. so maybe that counts for something...
>
>
No more than Steve does.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave S wrote:
>
> Well.. he WORKS for them..

So does Steven.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Visitors to SoCal TRACON must present their ID at the guard
> shack located some distance from the building proper.

Why would the madman in the panel truck stop at the guard shack to
present ID?

> I believe they are trying the to the best of their _ability_.

That's what worries me.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> writes:

> Different impact. Knocking down an airliner with a bomb will do as it is
> intended and kill all on board. Aside from killing the people in the TRACON,
> the cessation of air traffic control will not cause all the planes under its
> control to come crashing down or into each other. They will find a way to
> land VFR with a good chance of landing safely. Either that or deviate to
> another manned sector or center.

And if multiple centers are simultaneously attacked, so that all ATC is
effectively shut down?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Actually, most of the Center's (and some of the non-tower based tracons) have
> pretty good security. You can't get anywhere near the buildings at ZDC.

Just like the Pentagon, you mean?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:53:37 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Visitors to SoCal TRACON must present their ID at the guard
>> shack located some distance from the building proper.
>
>Why would the madman in the panel truck stop at the guard shack to
>present ID?

Good point.

>> I believe they are trying the to the best of their _ability_.
>
>That's what worries me.

That's what I was attempting to imply.

[Ron Natalie]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
> > Actually, most of the Center's (and some of the non-tower based tracons) have
> > pretty good security. You can't get anywhere near the buildings at ZDC.
>
> Just like the Pentagon, you mean?
>
We were talking about trucks not airpanes.

And no, the Pentagon was not so protected prior to 9/11. You could have driven a truck
into the building.

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > LOL, FAA is actively exploring ways to privatize the entire terminal
> > system, cashier the airways technicians who maintain the NAS
> infrastructure,
> > outsource the Flight Service Stations and shrink the 20 continental
> > ARTCC's into 3 mega facilities to save money.
> >
>
> They are? What's your source for that?
>

My source for which "that"?

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Well.. he WORKS for them.. so maybe that counts for something...
> >
> >
> No more than Steve does.
>

Actually, I bet I do work for them more than Steven does. My facility is a
full time ATC facility open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with the highest
traffic count in the world and one of the lowest staffing levels in the NAS.
Steven's ATC facility is a part-time ATC facility which closes at night. I
am working mandatory 48-50 hour weeks around the clock. I doubt he's
putting in that much time or effort.

Chip, ZTL

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> writes:
>
>> Different impact. Knocking down an airliner with a bomb will do as
>> it is intended and kill all on board. Aside from killing the people
>> in the TRACON, the cessation of air traffic control will not cause
>> all the planes under its control to come crashing down or into each
>> other. They will find a way to land VFR with a good chance of
>> landing safely. Either that or deviate to another manned sector or
>> center.
>
> And if multiple centers are simultaneously attacked, so that all ATC
> is effectively shut down?
>
The worst case scenario? You have a bunch of folks sitting in terminals,
unable to depart. En-route traffic will be minimally at risk, as most of
the major airports could still handle arrivals, just at a lower rate. I'd
think that the likelihood of an accident would be very low.

Given the opportunities presented by the vulnerabilities that we have in
most other areas of our life, attacking multiple TRACON sites wouldn't be
worth the trouble.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> We were talking about trucks not airpanes.

Perhaps, but it's important to look for the path of least resistance.

> And no, the Pentagon was not so protected prior to 9/11.
> You could have driven a truck into the building.

And ATC centers? Is the airspace above them restricted?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> The worst case scenario? You have a bunch of folks sitting in terminals,
> unable to depart.

That's bad enough.

> Given the opportunities presented by the vulnerabilities that we have in
> most other areas of our life, attacking multiple TRACON sites wouldn't be
> worth the trouble.

It depends on what sort of trouble you want to cause. Terrorists like
to do things that are high-visiblity and cause lots of hysteria.
Sometimes a loss of life does that, but sometimes a bit of anarchy is
sufficient as well.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> My source for which "that"?
>

For "that" which is the quoted material.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> SCT is one of the FAA trends to merge together a bunch of approach
>> controls which used to be located at the major airport towers. There
>> were 5 merged together here. The other major ones I know about
>> are in New York and the newly established one in DC.
>
> Maybe the FAA should revisit that policy. Single nodes of failure
> aren't always a good idea. I can understand it for ATC that is more or
> less evenly dispersed over a large region, but I don't see that it's
> such a good idea for ATC involving small areas like airports.
> Logically, you'd want the latter very near the airport. If the airport
> goes down, it doesn't matter if the ATC goes down--and if the airport is
> still operating, than the ATC will probably be operating, too. But if
> the two are very separated geographically, you end up with an airport
> area with no ATC, which is a bad thing.
>
> So who took over? Or did everything just stop?
>

LA Center in Palmdale has letters of agreement to take over, if
something happens to SCT, just as Oakland Center will take over if
something happens to NCT. There are also existing letters of agreement
between ZLA, ZOA, ZLC and ZAB ARTCCs if one should go down, that the
other will cover part of their space until they get back up and
running. This is what is happening right now. Palmdale is running SOCAL
Approach until SCT gets to a situation where they can come back to
work.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/nflNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAidrAKDvGgHSo4GqneuiRjVRcneom4RkbA Cgihax
lcxUoK7D8zrikHokR/mdQBo=
=IFKx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > My source for which "that"?
> >
>
> For "that" which is the quoted material.
>

Which quoted material?

Chip, ZTL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Which quoted material?
>

Here is the message again:

>
> LOL, FAA is actively exploring ways to privatize the entire terminal
> system, cashier the airways technicians who maintain the NAS
> infrastructure, outsource the Flight Service Stations and shrink the 20
> continental ARTCC's into 3 mega facilities to save money.
>

They are? What's your source for that?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Given the opportunities presented by the vulnerabilities that we
>> have in most other areas of our life, attacking multiple TRACON
>> sites wouldn't be worth the trouble.
>
> It depends on what sort of trouble you want to cause. Terrorists like
> to do things that are high-visiblity and cause lots of hysteria.
> Sometimes a loss of life does that, but sometimes a bit of anarchy is
> sufficient as well.
>
Understandable. However, there are many more fine opportunities that are
easier to pull off, if a little anarchy is the only goal.

Neil

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Which quoted material?
> >
>
> Here is the message again:
>
> >
> > LOL, FAA is actively exploring ways to privatize the entire terminal
> > system, cashier the airways technicians who maintain the NAS
> > infrastructure, outsource the Flight Service Stations and shrink the 20
> > continental ARTCC's into 3 mega facilities to save money.
> >
>
> They are? What's your source for that?
>

I am my source.

Chip, ZTL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I am my source.
>

So, then, your statement had no basis in reality.

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > I am my source.
> >
>
> So, then, your statement had no basis in reality.
>
>

What do you do up there in Green Bay, Steven, live under a rock? I realize
you washed out of Chicago ARTCC years ago for a reason, but I never
suspected you for a moron until just now...

Chip, ZTL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> What do you do up there in Green Bay, Steven, live under a rock? I
realize
> you washed out of Chicago ARTCC years ago for a reason, but I never
> suspected you for a moron until just now...
>

How did you know I washed out of Chicago ARTCC?

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > I am my source.
> >
>
> So, then, your statement had no basis in reality.
>
>

I'm sure that the current ATC privatization battle royal raging in the halls
of Congress has no basis in reality either. You probably missed it, but
it's the one that pits FAA management, the Bush Administration, and certain
Republicans on one side (privatize the system) against the Air Traffic,
Airways Facilities and Flight Service workforce, Democrats and most other
Republicans on the other (keep the system in the hands of the government).
If the FAA isn't actively planning to privatize the system, they surely are
wasting a whole lot of political capital in this fight, not to mention
millions of dollars in R&D.

In no particular order, here are some ATC, FSS and AF consolidation and
privatization sources for you.



http://www1.faa.gov/AboutFAA/FlightPlan.cfm

http://www1.faa.gov/Newsroom/ContractTowers.cfm

http://www1.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/Blueprint2002.htm

http://www2.faa.gov/asd/cip04/FY04cip.htm

http://www2.faa.gov/asd/library.htm

http://www1.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/blueprnt/2002Update/PDF/domains.pdf

http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v15/15-014-3.html

http://www.ocio.usda.gov/nitc/nitc_migration_exp.html

http://www2.faa.gov/ats/potomac/Tier1_home.htm

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/strtplns/nstc/nttplan/chap3.html

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/gis/tracon.html

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/ssd/ssd-spec.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/presrp97/faa.htm

http://www.washcg.com/NewWCG/pa_atcfacility.htm

http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats19.htm

http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats16.htm

http://204.108.10.116/nasiHTML/RED/narp03/index1.html

http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats04.htm

http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats26.htm

http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,655971,00.asp

http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,656647,00.asp

http://204.108.10.116/nasiHTML/RED/narp01/index1.html

http://www.rppi.org/atlantaneworleans.html

http://www.rppi.org/atc/atc4.html#Anchor-32878

http://yichoe.netian.com/AAA/consol.htm

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/ig_report2.html

http://www.mitre.org/

http://www.mitrecaasd.org/press/

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_28b/leadnews/185305-1.html

http://www.boeing.com/atm/background/longview.html

http://www.newsmgr.com/publish/article_107.shtml

http://www.newsmgr.com/uploads/032703-reauthorization.pdf

http://www.newsmgr.com/publish/article_84.shtml

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02591.pdf


You might want to get your head out of the staff office there at GRB from
time to time and see what is happening nationally in your career field.

Chip, ZTL

[Montblack]

Switch one letter ...and it becomes CAT fight :-)

--
Montblack
"Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote a reply to Chip Jones)

> > What do you do up there in Green Bay, Steven, live under a rock? I
> realize
> > you washed out of Chicago ARTCC years ago for a reason, but I never
> > suspected you for a moron until just now...
> >
>
> How did you know I washed out of Chicago ARTCC?

[Capt. Doug]

>Chip Jones wrote in message > You might want to get your head out of the
staff >office there at GRB from
> time to time and see what is happening nationally in your career field.

Hey now, don't confuse him with facts.

D.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I'm sure that the current ATC privatization battle royal raging in the
halls
> of Congress has no basis in reality either. You probably missed it, but
> it's the one that pits FAA management, the Bush Administration, and
certain
> Republicans on one side (privatize the system) against the Air Traffic,
> Airways Facilities and Flight Service workforce, Democrats and most other
> Republicans on the other (keep the system in the hands of the
government).
> If the FAA isn't actively planning to privatize the system, they surely
are
> wasting a whole lot of political capital in this fight, not to mention
> millions of dollars in R&D.
>
> In no particular order, here are some ATC, FSS and AF consolidation and
> privatization sources for you.
>
>
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/AboutFAA/FlightPlan.cfm
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/Newsroom/ContractTowers.cfm
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/Blueprint2002.htm
>
> http://www2.faa.gov/asd/cip04/FY04cip.htm
>
> http://www2.faa.gov/asd/library.htm
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/blueprnt/2002Update/PDF/domains.pdf
>
> http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v15/15-014-3.html
>
> http://www.ocio.usda.gov/nitc/nitc_migration_exp.html
>
> http://www2.faa.gov/ats/potomac/Tier1_home.htm
>
> http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/strtplns/nstc/nttplan/chap3.html
>
> http://www.volpe.dot.gov/gis/tracon.html
>
> http://www.volpe.dot.gov/ssd/ssd-spec.html
>
> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/presrp97/faa.htm
>
> http://www.washcg.com/NewWCG/pa_atcfacility.htm
>
> http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats19.htm
>
> http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats16.htm
>
> http://204.108.10.116/nasiHTML/RED/narp03/index1.html
>
> http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats04.htm
>
> http://www.naats.org/narbit/naats26.htm
>
> http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,655971,00.asp
>
> http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,656647,00.asp
>
> http://204.108.10.116/nasiHTML/RED/narp01/index1.html
>
> http://www.rppi.org/atlantaneworleans.html
>
> http://www.rppi.org/atc/atc4.html#Anchor-32878
>
> http://yichoe.netian.com/AAA/consol.htm
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/ig_report2.html
>
> http://www.mitre.org/
>
> http://www.mitrecaasd.org/press/
>
> http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_28b/leadnews/185305-1.html
>
> http://www.boeing.com/atm/background/longview.html
>
> http://www.newsmgr.com/publish/article_107.shtml
>
> http://www.newsmgr.com/uploads/032703-reauthorization.pdf
>
> http://www.newsmgr.com/publish/article_84.shtml
>
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02591.pdf
>

You expect me to wade through those to prove your assertions? Sorry, it
doesn't work that way.