DUATS and LockMart

[Jay Beckman]

Hey All...

I may have misinterpreted what I read, but did anyone else recently see any
mention of a possible plan to take DUATS out of the realm of competitive
bidding, give it soley to LockMart who would then remove it's status as an
"official" source of Wx info?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:47:56 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in <gOCzg.10285$RD.1633@fed1read08>::

>I may have misinterpreted what I read, but did anyone else recently see any
>mention of a possible plan to take DUATS out of the realm of competitive
>bidding, give it soley to LockMart who would then remove it's status as an
>"official" source of Wx info?


This is all I could find:


http://www.flightprep.com/showmyturn.php?id=11
If it?s not broke why fix it?
Direct User Access Terminal Service (DUATS) has now been around for
about fifteen years. Its primary function is to allow pilots, having
access to computers, to acquire weather information, manage flight
plans, get NOTAMS and review the latest airspace changes. DUATS is an
FAA sponsored service administered by private vendors. The service is
free to pilots. There are currently two vendors, DTC DUAT and CSC
DUATS. Each service provides the basic weather products and services
as specified by the FAA. Pilots love this service since they can
access DUATS on their terms - at any time and at any place. The
service is accurate, reliable and up times are phenomenal. The vendors
are paid on a per pilot use basis. So it is incumbent for them to
provide the best possible service to attract pilots to their
respective DUATS offering. As a result, each service provider adds
free value added products and services. CSC DUATS for example has
teamed with FlightPrep? to provides the powerful graphic flight
planner GoldenEagle FlightPrep? free to any pilot for the asking, and
DTC DUATS provides a high performance DUAT web access site also free
to pilots.

Having two competing DUATS providers benefits pilots, improves the
service and reduces costs. Both are low cost options for taxpayers and
cost less than $3 million a year. The DUATS flight planner and
briefing service is used by more than 17,000 pilots a day. The DUATS
service has never run over budget. The same can not yet be said of the
planned FSS A76 Modernization transition of the Flight Service
function. This service will be administered by Lockheed Martin Inc.
While not part of the approved contract, the FAA now proposes to do
away with DUATS as we know it and move this important service to a
single source private provider. As is usually the case, such a move
makes the service uncompetitive, which most likely will result in cost
overruns and mediocre service. As far we can determine, no one outside
the FAA (with the possible exception of Lockheed Martin Inc.) thinks
this is a good idea. Most pilots, flight planning service providers
and AOPA do not support this proposed change. There is no compelling
reason to fix DUATS - it?s not broken.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <gOCzg.10285$RD.1633@fed1read08>,
"Jay Beckman" > wrote:

> Hey All...
>
> I may have misinterpreted what I read, but did anyone else recently see any
> mention of a possible plan to take DUATS out of the realm of competitive
> bidding, give it soley to LockMart who would then remove it's status as an
> "official" source of Wx info?


I haven't heard anything about it being removed as an official source of
weather info, but then again, I don't much care about my weather sources
being official. Even if LM took over DUATS, I don't know why the FAA
would remove it as an official source of weather information.



JKG

[.Blueskies.]

There you go, that was up at the DUATS booth at Airventure. The folks there were concerned...


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
: On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:47:56 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
: wrote in <gOCzg.10285$RD.1633@fed1read08>::
:
: >I may have misinterpreted what I read, but did anyone else recently see any
: >mention of a possible plan to take DUATS out of the realm of competitive
: >bidding, give it soley to LockMart who would then remove it's status as an
: >"official" source of Wx info?
:
:
: This is all I could find:
:
:
: http://www.flightprep.com/showmyturn.php?id=11
: If it?s not broke why fix it?
: Direct User Access Terminal Service (DUATS) has now been around for
: about fifteen years. Its primary function is to allow pilots, having
: access to computers, to acquire weather information, manage flight
: plans, get NOTAMS and review the latest airspace changes. DUATS is an
: FAA sponsored service administered by private vendors. The service is
: free to pilots. There are currently two vendors, DTC DUAT and CSC
: DUATS. Each service provides the basic weather products and services
: as specified by the FAA. Pilots love this service since they can
: access DUATS on their terms - at any time and at any place. The
: service is accurate, reliable and up times are phenomenal. The vendors
: are paid on a per pilot use basis. So it is incumbent for them to
: provide the best possible service to attract pilots to their
: respective DUATS offering. As a result, each service provider adds
: free value added products and services. CSC DUATS for example has
: teamed with FlightPrep? to provides the powerful graphic flight
: planner GoldenEagle FlightPrep? free to any pilot for the asking, and
: DTC DUATS provides a high performance DUAT web access site also free
: to pilots.
:
: Having two competing DUATS providers benefits pilots, improves the
: service and reduces costs. Both are low cost options for taxpayers and
: cost less than $3 million a year. The DUATS flight planner and
: briefing service is used by more than 17,000 pilots a day. The DUATS
: service has never run over budget. The same can not yet be said of the
: planned FSS A76 Modernization transition of the Flight Service
: function. This service will be administered by Lockheed Martin Inc.
: While not part of the approved contract, the FAA now proposes to do
: away with DUATS as we know it and move this important service to a
: single source private provider. As is usually the case, such a move
: makes the service uncompetitive, which most likely will result in cost
: overruns and mediocre service. As far we can determine, no one outside
: the FAA (with the possible exception of Lockheed Martin Inc.) thinks
: this is a good idea. Most pilots, flight planning service providers
: and AOPA do not support this proposed change. There is no compelling
: reason to fix DUATS - it?s not broken.
:

[BTIZ]

well.. first maybe LocMar should get their own version of the weather web
running before the gov't decides to stop funding DUATS
BT

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article <gOCzg.10285$RD.1633@fed1read08>,
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
>
>> Hey All...
>>
>> I may have misinterpreted what I read, but did anyone else recently see
>> any
>> mention of a possible plan to take DUATS out of the realm of competitive
>> bidding, give it soley to LockMart who would then remove it's status as
>> an
>> "official" source of Wx info?
>
>
> I haven't heard anything about it being removed as an official source of
> weather info, but then again, I don't much care about my weather sources
> being official. Even if LM took over DUATS, I don't know why the FAA
> would remove it as an official source of weather information.
>
>
>
> JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

Couldn't care less about DUATS for weather, I just hope they don't make
us wait on hold to talk to a briefer to file IFR. Right now, a couple
clicks and it's done.

Either that, or they'll offer the online "service" for a "subscription
fee."



JKG


In article <DyTzg.22837$6w.3734@fed1read11>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> well.. first maybe LocMar should get their own version of the weather web
> running before the gov't decides to stop funding DUATS
> BT
>
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <gOCzg.10285$RD.1633@fed1read08>,
> > "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
> >
> >> Hey All...
> >>
> >> I may have misinterpreted what I read, but did anyone else recently see
> >> any
> >> mention of a possible plan to take DUATS out of the realm of competitive
> >> bidding, give it soley to LockMart who would then remove it's status as
> >> an
> >> "official" source of Wx info?
> >
> >
> > I haven't heard anything about it being removed as an official source of
> > weather info, but then again, I don't much care about my weather sources
> > being official. Even if LM took over DUATS, I don't know why the FAA
> > would remove it as an official source of weather information.
> >
> >
> >
> > JKG

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:48:40 GMT, ".Blueskies."
> wrote in
>::

>that was up at the DUATS booth at Airventure. The folks there were concerned.

If, in fact, Lockheed-Martin is routinely disconnecting FSS telephone
calls, rather that experiencing hold times in excess of their
contractual agreement with the FAA as reported in this newsgroup, we
should all be concerned.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:22:07 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>::

>Couldn't care less about DUATS for weather,

I find it to often contain information the FSS briefer doesn't brief.

>I just hope they don't make us wait on hold to talk to a briefer to file IFR.
> Right now, a couple clicks and it's done.

Ah. Therein may lie the motivation for ceding operation of DUATS to
Lockheed-Martin; because DUATS flight plans are not input into the
system by FSS employees, but computers, perhaps there is a financial
incentive issue at the root of the rumored consolidation of DUATS
operations.

>Either that, or they'll offer the online "service" for a "subscription
>fee."

I don't think the FAA has actually been granted the authority to
charge a fee for flight plans, yet.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >Either that, or they'll offer the online "service" for a "subscription
> >fee."
>
> I don't think the FAA has actually been granted the authority to
> charge a fee for flight plans, yet.

The FAA wouldn't have to, LM would do it.


JKG

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:31:45 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >Either that, or they'll offer the online "service" for a "subscription
>> >fee."
>>
>> I don't think the FAA has actually been granted the authority to
>> charge a fee for flight plans, yet.
>
>The FAA wouldn't have to, LM would do it.
>

Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> I don't think the FAA has actually been granted the authority to
> >> charge a fee for flight plans, yet.
> >
> >The FAA wouldn't have to, LM would do it.
> >
>
> Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.


Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.



JKG

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:44:23 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> I don't think the FAA has actually been granted the authority to
>> >> charge a fee for flight plans, yet.
>> >
>> >The FAA wouldn't have to, LM would do it.
>> >
>>
>> Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.
>
>
>Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.
>

So what's preventing Lockheed-Martin from charging for FSS services?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.
> >
> >
> >Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.
> >
>
> So what's preventing Lockheed-Martin from charging for FSS services?

That's a great question. I have no idea what the contract with the FAA
specifies, or what restrictions are there. I have no idea whether LM is
prohibited from offering "extra" services on their own, but if not, I
could certainly see DUATS being pulled as a "free" service and being
offered as a "fee" service by LM.


JKG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.
>> >
>> >
>> >Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.
>> >
>>
>> So what's preventing Lockheed-Martin from charging for FSS services?
>
> That's a great question. I have no idea what the contract with the FAA
> specifies, or what restrictions are there. I have no idea whether LM is
> prohibited from offering "extra" services on their own, but if not, I
> could certainly see DUATS being pulled as a "free" service and being
> offered as a "fee" service by LM.
>

DUATS is currently paid for by the FAA on a per use basis. Is there any
evidence that if LM takes over the service from the companies now doing it
that it wouldn't be funded the same way?

Even if it isn't it has got to be cheaper for LM to provide the information
as DUATs now does than by a human on the phone.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> DUATS is currently paid for by the FAA on a per use basis. Is there any
> evidence that if LM takes over the service from the companies now doing it
> that it wouldn't be funded the same way?

Not the I'm aware of, other than the fact that the FAA has made no
secret of their desire to move toward a user fee-based funding system.
They could fund the LM contract for "free" and still permit LM to offer
"enhanced" services for a fee, unless there is some contractual language
that would prevent that; I have no idea how the LM contract was
negotiated nor what language is contained within.


> Even if it isn't it has got to be cheaper for LM to provide the information
> as DUATs now does than by a human on the phone.

Yes, but the government doesn't care about "cheaper." The least
expensive way to provide service is to permit competitive bidding, which
would be lost by handing the DUATS function to LM.



JKG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> DUATS is currently paid for by the FAA on a per use basis. Is there any
>> evidence that if LM takes over the service from the companies now doing
>> it
>> that it wouldn't be funded the same way?
>
> Not the I'm aware of, other than the fact that the FAA has made no
> secret of their desire to move toward a user fee-based funding system.
> They could fund the LM contract for "free" and still permit LM to offer
> "enhanced" services for a fee, unless there is some contractual language
> that would prevent that; I have no idea how the LM contract was
> negotiated nor what language is contained within.
>
>
>> Even if it isn't it has got to be cheaper for LM to provide the
>> information
>> as DUATs now does than by a human on the phone.
>
> Yes, but the government doesn't care about "cheaper." The least
> expensive way to provide service is to permit competitive bidding, which
> would be lost by handing the DUATS function to LM.
>

But in the case of LM taking it over we aren't talking about the government
saving money we are talking about LM saving money. LM is paid X to give out
briefings. As I said it has to be cheaper for LM to give them via a DUATS
like system than by phone.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> > Yes, but the government doesn't care about "cheaper." The least
> > expensive way to provide service is to permit competitive bidding, which
> > would be lost by handing the DUATS function to LM.
> >
>
> But in the case of LM taking it over we aren't talking about the government
> saving money we are talking about LM saving money. LM is paid X to give out
> briefings. As I said it has to be cheaper for LM to give them via a DUATS
> like system than by phone.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I would guess that
DUATS only has a fraction of the volume of the live briefers. For me,
it's great because I know what I'm doing, can collect the required
information, make my own decisions, and file my IFR flight plan in the
time I would spend on hold waiting for a briefer at peak times.
However, I can't do this at most FBOs (at least those without WiFi), so
I still have to rely on a live person when I'm away from home.

There may not be much stopping LM from rolling out a fee-based DUATS
system, then forcing more folks onto it. A nice, slow, easy shift to
fee-based services.



JKG

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>:

>then forcing more folks onto it.


Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >then forcing more folks onto it.
>
>
> Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?


It won't be a free service. That's the point.



JKG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >then forcing more folks onto it.
>>
>>
>> Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?
>
>
> It won't be a free service. That's the point.
>
>

Well almost. My point is why would LM push people from a service that costs
them less to provide (DUATS) to one that costs them more to provide (Live
Briefings)?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> >> Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?
> >
> >
> > It won't be a free service. That's the point.
> >
> >
>
> Well almost. My point is why would LM push people from a service that costs
> them less to provide (DUATS) to one that costs them more to provide (Live
> Briefings)?

For them, it really doesn't matter because the government is paying, not
the consumer.

But for LM, if they are permitted to provide an "extra" service for
additional revenue, that could be very attractive, especially if there
is no competition.



JKG

[bdl]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> Hey All...
>
> I may have misinterpreted what I read, but did anyone else recently see any
> mention of a possible plan to take DUATS out of the realm of competitive
> bidding, give it soley to LockMart who would then remove it's status as an
> "official" source of Wx info?

I saw the various fliers that one of the DUATS vendors was passing out
during Airventure. They're big thing was that Lockheed was so new to
the game, that it would take them many years to develop the product
that currently exists with DUATS today. Call your congressman, boycott
the FAA, etc, etc.

Personally, I find that talk a little overblown. Its obvious that FS21
(the name for the FSS "service" that Lockheed is slated to provide) has
a computer component to it. All the material I have received and heard
from AOPA revolves around how with the new system, FSS will finally be
in the current level of technology.

One of the features supposedly is the ability to look at a web page
showing the weather information while on the phone with a briefer.
With both of you looking at the same information. I'm envisioning some
sort of virtual whiteboard web based app, which would allow the briefer
to highlight areas of weather directly to the interested party.

In addition, the briefer will have information about you the pilot,
your level of ratings, etc. So that information can be more tailored to
you. If your IFR rated vs. VFR-only, etc.

I can't imagine in today's day and age, not having a computer based
method for getting weather information. Its cheaper for the
government, its cheaper for Lockheed (and still would count as a
"briefing" for their SLA counts), and all around more efficient. If
Lockheed started charging extra for a computer briefing rather than a
live phone briefing (which is supposed to still be free based on the
current funding mechanism for the FAA), then pilots would simply
continue to do what they do now. Use unofficial weather information,
or talk only to live briefings. Which only drive up Lockheed's costs.

I wouldn't worry too much about a computer based briefing going away.
DUATS more than likely will go away, but that should only affect people
whose livelihood depends on DUATS.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> >> Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?
>> >
>> >
>> > It won't be a free service. That's the point.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well almost. My point is why would LM push people from a service that
>> costs
>> them less to provide (DUATS) to one that costs them more to provide (Live
>> Briefings)?
>
> For them, it really doesn't matter because the government is paying, not
> the consumer.
>
> But for LM, if they are permitted to provide an "extra" service for
> additional revenue, that could be very attractive, especially if there
> is no competition.
>
>

I've seen nothing though that the FAA isn't going to pay LM for providing
DUATS if they don't renew the current contracts.