HOUSE BILL COULD KILL FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION

[Larry Dighera]

Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 27 July 8, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE BILL COULD KILL FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION
A simple, one-line amendment to the FAA's appropriations bill could
kill improved flight service station services for general aviation
pilots. The amendment reads, "None of the funds made available in
this Act may be used to provide for the competitive sourcing of flight
service stations." Last week, the House passed the Transportation-
Treasury-Housing Appropriations bill with the amendment, sponsored
by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). And it means, in plain English, that
the FAA would be forced to terminate the FSS modernization contract
with Lockheed-Martin, the taxpayers would pay a $325 million penalty
to Lockheed, and pilots would continue to suffer through interminable
hold times and briefers who don't have access to all the data in the
system. "It's incredulous that in an atmosphere of concerns for FAA
funding, more business-like air traffic operations--and wise use of
taxpayers dollars--that Congress even considered, much less accepted,
this amendment," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "We've worked with
the FAA for three long years to get a better safety-of-flight
information system for general aviation pilots that will also save
$2.2 billion over 10 years. It would be a travesty for all of that
to be undone now to return to a labor-intensive, antiquated, expensive
system that can't meet modern needs." See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050706bill.html ).


WHAT THE AMENDMENT MEANS TO GA PILOTS
What happens if the funding bill, complete with the amendment halting
the FSS modernization contract, becomes law? Things won't get any
better, and they could get a lot worse. "Everything that AOPA has
worked for--improved services, performance guarantees, Internet access
to briefings, and $2.2 billion in cost savings over the next
decade--would be lost," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. Maintaining
the status quo would be costly and inefficient, and some legal experts
believe the FAA would be forced to honor the bid that was submitted by
current FSS employees during the A-76 bidding process. That bid would
cut the number of FSS facilities from 58 to four, forcing more than
900 employees to relocate and possibly resulting in even more job
losses. Lockheed-Martin's bid keeps 20 facilities in place with 1,000
employees, while the FSS employees' bid would build new facilities and
keep only 966 workers. "Many services must be provided by government
employees for reasons of coordination, security, and safety," said
Boyer. "But FSS functions provided by private industry under
government supervision don't compromise that." See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050706bill.html ).

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
> modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?

A friend to GA would let FSS die.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:14:11 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
>> modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?
>
>A friend to GA would let FSS die.

If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?

[skym]

Please explain.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:14:11 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
> >
> >
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
> >> modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?
> >
> >A friend to GA would let FSS die.
>
> If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
> about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?

FSS costs $502m annually according to the FAA. There are roughly 5,000
public-use airports to think about. That's $100k per airport PER YEAR.
How much do those WSI satellite terminals cost?

Let's get even more creative... A Garmin 396 costs $2500. There are
about 100,000 N-numbered aircraft, IIRC. The government could buy us
all a G-396 for Christmas, and have $250 million left over that year to
buy us XM Weather subscriptions, which would leave $200m in the bank.
In the first year. Year 2 the savings go waaay up.

The issue here is that Weather, TFRs, etc. are information. Information
costs a fixed amount to manufacture, and a variable amount to
distribute. FSS with 2500 employees is a very costly way of
distributing it. My example of the 396 is not meant literally but it
shows just how ridiculous the gap is.

If FSS added significant value through human expertise, it would be
different. It's my understanding that once upon a time, FSS specialists
actually had local expertise and could tell you things that weren't
written in the forecasts. If that's what we had, I'd fight for it too.
Nowadays it seems to me that they are basically unionized, highly-paid
call center reps. Talk about contradictions in terms. If you're coming
at his from the labor union angle that wants to preserve any union job,
that's logical, but it's not benefiting GA. Imagine if instead of using
Google you had to call a phone number and have people read URLs back to
you. Welcome to FSS today.

-cwk.

[Larry Dighera]

On 22 Sep 2005 07:44:24 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:14:11 -0600, Newps > wrote
>> in >::
>>
>> >
>> >Larry Dighera wrote:
>> >> Could it be? The President is a friend of GA? Or is the FSS
>> >> modernization the camel's nose under the user-fee tent?
>> >
>> >A friend to GA would let FSS die.
>>
>> If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
>> about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?
>>
>The issue here is that Weather, TFRs, etc. are information. Information
>costs a fixed amount to manufacture, and a variable amount to
>distribute. FSS with 2500 employees is a very costly way of
>distributing it. My example of the 396 is not meant literally but it
>shows just how ridiculous the gap is.
>
>If FSS added significant value through human expertise, it would be
>different. It's my understanding that once upon a time, FSS specialists
>actually had local expertise and could tell you things that weren't
>written in the forecasts. If that's what we had, I'd fight for it too.

The issue you raise, whether or not FSS' are necessary, is not the
issue I mentioned, user fees.

But I would agree that FSS could be pretty much replaced by DUATS.
However, I still prefer the luxury of a live preflight briefing.

[.Blueskies.]

Fees for aircraft registration should be increased to help offest some of the costs of the system. It should be based on
max takeoff weight.

I like the comments about giving away a GPS with all the info systems built in. The next question however is who loads
the information to start with? Who put up and maintains the satellites? Who summarizes the wx details? Who takes the
flight plan and closes it?

[Mike Rapoport]

Why should weight matter? It doesn't make any difference in the cost to
provide the service.

Mike
MU-2


".Blueskies." > wrote in message
...
> Fees for aircraft registration should be increased to help offest some of
> the costs of the system. It should be based on max takeoff weight.
>
> I like the comments about giving away a GPS with all the info systems
> built in. The next question however is who loads the information to start
> with? Who put up and maintains the satellites? Who summarizes the wx
> details? Who takes the flight plan and closes it?
>

[.Blueskies.]

It more closely indicates the numbers of users of 'the system' or more closely indicates the benefit received.
Absolutely no way a J-3 should pay anything near what a 747 pays, not even 1/1000th the amount...


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Why should weight matter? It doesn't make any difference in the cost to provide the service.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message ...
>> Fees for aircraft registration should be increased to help offest some of the costs of the system. It should be based
>> on max takeoff weight.
>>
>> I like the comments about giving away a GPS with all the info systems built in. The next question however is who
>> loads the information to start with? Who put up and maintains the satellites? Who summarizes the wx details? Who
>> takes the flight plan and closes it?
>>
>
>

[George Patterson]

..Blueskies. wrote:
> It more closely indicates the numbers of users of 'the system' or more closely indicates the benefit received.
> Absolutely no way a J-3 should pay anything near what a 747 pays, not even 1/1000th the amount...

Well, the current system already does that pretty well and the cost of
collection is a lot less than any other method anyone has managed to think of.
Maybe we ought to stick with it?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2005 07:44:24 -0700, wrote in
> . com>::

> >> If there were no Flight Service Stations, how would you get briefed
> >> about all the pop-up TFRs and military activity?
> >>
> >The issue here is that Weather, TFRs, etc. are information. Information
> >costs a fixed amount to manufacture, and a variable amount to
> >distribute. FSS with 2500 employees is a very costly way of
> >distributing it. My example of the 396 is not meant literally but it
> >shows just how ridiculous the gap is.
> >
> >If FSS added significant value through human expertise, it would be
> >different. It's my understanding that once upon a time, FSS specialists
> >actually had local expertise and could tell you things that weren't
> >written in the forecasts. If that's what we had, I'd fight for it too.
>
> The issue you raise, whether or not FSS' are necessary, is not the
> issue I mentioned, user fees.

Sorry, I thought you asked, "If there were no Flight Service Stations,
how would you get briefed about all the pop-up TFRs and military
activity?"

;)

As for user fees, they seem pretty much inevitable, and it's been my
position that GA might be better off to play ball on the concept and
make our fight on the magnitude. IIRC a Canadian 172 owner would pay
something like $120 annually, which seems to me like, well, chump
change considering the costs of aviation overall.

> But I would agree that FSS could be pretty much replaced by DUATS.
> However, I still prefer the luxury of a live preflight briefing.

Then we could have a 1-900 number. Press 1 for redhead, press 2 for
Asian, press 3 to talk to a preflight briefer....

Best,
-cwk.

[[email protected]]

George Patterson wrote:
> .Blueskies. wrote:
> > It more closely indicates the numbers of users of 'the system' or more closely indicates the benefit received.
> > Absolutely no way a J-3 should pay anything near what a 747 pays, not even 1/1000th the amount...
>
> Well, the current system already does that pretty well and the cost of
> collection is a lot less than any other method anyone has managed to think of.
> Maybe we ought to stick with it?
>

IIRC there are about $740m in taxes collected on aviation fuels
annually, of which $60m are 100LL. I think it's arguable whether that
actually covers the cost of services we consume, but we're certainly
not subsidizing other parts of the system.

As for collections, it's arguable whether a fuel tax is more
"efficient" to collect than a user fee. Fuel taxes have to be collected
from many thousands of fuel sellers. A usage fee could be computed
based on flight plans, and there are what, 5 primary computers that
process those? We have tail numbers and addresses already so sending
the bill doesn't require that much. It's so simple even Lockmar could
figure out how to do it.

The Cub-vs-747 debate is missing another detail which is traffic
management. An enroute airspace block at FL350 is worth a lot more than
one at 7000'. Piston GA also tends to use reliever and tertiary fields
with comparatively low traffic loads. So there is a sense in which the
747 places a higher burden on the system. However, much of this
argument disappears when we consider the VLJs like the Eclipse. They're
the ones that really need to worry about a cost-based accounting. That
alone could kill the personal air-taxi system, perhaps rightly so.

-cwk.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> As for user fees, they seem pretty much inevitable, and it's been my
> position that GA might be better off to play ball on the concept and
> make our fight on the magnitude. IIRC a Canadian 172 owner would pay
> something like $120 annually, which seems to me like, well, chump
> change considering the costs of aviation overall.

As of two years ago the owner I know of a Cherokee 235 in Canada paid
about $35 US for his yearly ATC fee. They charged by weight.

[.Blueskies.]

> wrote in message ups.com...
>
> George Patterson wrote:
>> .Blueskies. wrote:
>> > It more closely indicates the numbers of users of 'the system' or more closely indicates the benefit received.
>> > Absolutely no way a J-3 should pay anything near what a 747 pays, not even 1/1000th the amount...
>>
>> Well, the current system already does that pretty well and the cost of
>> collection is a lot less than any other method anyone has managed to think of.
>> Maybe we ought to stick with it?
>>
>
> IIRC there are about $740m in taxes collected on aviation fuels
> annually, of which $60m are 100LL. I think it's arguable whether that
> actually covers the cost of services we consume, but we're certainly
> not subsidizing other parts of the system.
>
> As for collections, it's arguable whether a fuel tax is more
> "efficient" to collect than a user fee. Fuel taxes have to be collected
> from many thousands of fuel sellers. A usage fee could be computed
> based on flight plans, and there are what, 5 primary computers that
> process those? We have tail numbers and addresses already so sending
> the bill doesn't require that much. It's so simple even Lockmar could
> figure out how to do it.
>
> The Cub-vs-747 debate is missing another detail which is traffic
> management. An enroute airspace block at FL350 is worth a lot more than
> one at 7000'. Piston GA also tends to use reliever and tertiary fields
> with comparatively low traffic loads. So there is a sense in which the
> 747 places a higher burden on the system. However, much of this
> argument disappears when we consider the VLJs like the Eclipse. They're
> the ones that really need to worry about a cost-based accounting. That
> alone could kill the personal air-taxi system, perhaps rightly so.
>
> -cwk.
>

User fees for flight plans and briefings will make GA less safe. A typical pilot may choose to not file a flight plan
because of the cost and go it without a briefing. We all know where that can lead.

The fuel tax is a good system that should be kept. It is a well thought out funding mechanism. The way it feeds the
airway trust fund is right on. One of the keys is to keep the trust fund clean and don't let the rest of gov't get their
hands on it. It should be kept separate from any DHS grabs.

Maybe the aircraft registration fees need to be based on two things, maybe more. MGTOW plus a calculation for speed, and
maybe service ceiling too.