More stories of long FSS hold times and another issue

[Peter R.]

This past week I spoke with a CFII out of Michigan who lamented that his and
his students hold times awaiting a live FSS briefer had significantly
increased to between 30 minutes to one hour. Coincidentally both AOPA and
Avweb had articles this week discussing the frustration of long hold times
many are experiencing.

For those rather myopic pilots whose knee-jerk response is to say to use a
computer for all briefings and flight plan filings, consider this: Those of
us who volunteer for Lifeguard flights now have a real concern about being
able to file an IFR flight plan and receive a briefing over the phone, if
away from home/office when the call for the flight comes in.

For example, I am on the call list for a heart transplant patient who only
has a two hour window to arrive into his transplant city's airport. I live
and base my aircraft in the city where the patient will be departing. With 30
minutes allotted to drive to the airport and prepare the aircraft for flight
and another 1 hr and 15 minutes to perform the flight, this leaves very
little extra time.

Logically if the call comes in while I am away from a computer (restaurant,
shopping, etc), it makes the most sense to file over the phone and receive a
briefing while driving to the airport, given that this time is built into the
narrow window needed. If these hold times are not reduced, this time savings
step will not be an option.

Additionally, in my case there is a real possibility that a computer will not
be available at the airport since both my class C airport's FBOs lock up for
the night between midnight and 5:00 am. I guess filing with clearance
delivery and receiving a flight briefing from FSS when in the air will be the
fallback here.

In addition to filling out Lockheed Martin's survey and complaint form, I
have also emailed AOPA with my concerns about the above scenario. These
problems with FSS cannot continue.

--
Peter

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Just within the past week I have had the "system" lose two flight plans that
were entered by the computer. When I called on the land line, there was no
answer for over 20 minutes.

According to some of the FS briefers, their computer has also been losing
some flight plans as well.

So far the privatization has been a great success.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Just within the past week I have had the "system" lose two flight plans
> that were entered by the computer. When I called on the land line, there
> was no answer for over 20 minutes.
>
> According to some of the FS briefers, their computer has also been losing
> some flight plans as well.
>
> So far the privatization has been a great success.
>

That never happened under the old system?

The old FSS: brought to you by the same folks that brought you the Postal
(Dis)service, Amtrak, INS, and 5,000 other agencies! :~)

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Below is an email which I received from a local pilot. I attended a
Wisconsin DOT Aviation Safety meeting several weeks ago and many attending
pilots had similar complaints. The Wisconsin DOT rep told that most calls
from Wisconsin are currently being handled by the Princeton FSS while
Lansing and Kankakee under go "modernization". Once Lansing and Kankakee
are fully operational our calls will be routed those directions.

So it seems to me that there are several problems converging at once causing
most bottlenecks and cluster*ucks. Closing FSS's while
refurbishing/upgrading/modernizing/bsing other FSS's and also
relocating/retraining current or hiring/training briefers sounds like a
pretty good recipe for disaster. Not only is it frustrating for the pilots,
but it must be frustrating for the briefers as well. Great for moral and
quality of service. Not.

Jim

Please forward this to any other concerned parties you may know...

Most of us have been experiencing problems with flight service since Green
Bay AFSS closed its doors. Some of the problems are serious in nature and
are becoming more frequent in occurrence. Issues range from long hold
times, poor audio quality, and briefers being unfamiliar with our area to
hold times exceeding 30 minutes and briefers lacking knowledge of aviation
in general. Having experienced most of these problems myself and hearing
about all of them from fellow pilots in the past 5 days, I've investigated
further.

I have spent a lot of time on the phone with AOPA today. It seems that we
are not the only ones having these problems (go figure). Lockheed has
convened a "crisis" meeting and will hopefully have a plan of action. That
being said, we've all heard it before--It is imperative that someone that
can do something about these safety of flight issues hear about them.

AOPA appears to be our best ally at this point. They continue to compile a
database of specific instances and will continue to present them to Lockheed
Martin and government officials. The goal being to hold Lockheed to the
standards set forth in their (LM) contract with FAA.

So here is what we (this means you) need to do: When you experience
problems with flight service, and you can expect to at this point, please
use about five minutes of your time to call AOPA and let them know about it.
They will want your N-number, approximate time you called/contacted Flight
Service, and the specific issues you experienced. 1-800-USA-AOPA is their
number; push 1 at the menu. I have never had to hold for more than about 1
minute with AOPA, including today. Hopefully your experiences are no
different--because telling someone about these issues is the only way to get
them fixed.

Please! Take the time to tell AOPA about the problems we are having with
Flight Service. We need to keep the current "crisis" situation from
becoming the norm and ultimately losing this valuable and necessary
resource.

[kontiki]

I've had similar experiences myself this past weekend. Ridiculous
hold times to get a clearance... finally took off in marginal VFR
and got the clearance at pattern altitude. On return I tried forever
to get through just to cancel IFR... finally gave up.

There should at least be a separate number to call for clearances
and for cancellations. Up until a few weeks ago we had an RCO to
flight service but that seems to be dead now. I use DUATS to
weather brief and file and that's always been great but at an
uncontrolled field you still need a way to get a clearance and
cancel when the weather is bad.

I guess they are going to tell us that if we want better service
we need to pay user fees. How aboutif all the other people that
receive government services (food stamps, welfare, SSI, housing,
fee medical care, etc. etc. start paying user fees?

[kontiki]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> That never happened under the old system?
>
Actually, no. I always have had very good service
under the old system, to be perfectly honest.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>>
> There should at least be a separate number to call for clearances
> and for cancellations. Up until a few weeks ago we had an RCO to
> flight service but that seems to be dead now. I use DUATS to
> weather brief and file and that's always been great but at an
> uncontrolled field you still need a way to get a clearance and
> cancel when the weather is bad.

Hmm... How hard would it be for them to configure 1800WXBRIEF to:
"Useing the touch tone phone enter your N number followed by the # sign."
Press 1 now to cancel all flight plans on file for the N number that you
have entered (verify with are you sure you want to cancel all flight plans
currently on file for "insert electronic voice".) Press 1 for yes, 2 for
no, 3 to go back to the main menu.
Press 2 to speak to a briefer

This may not work for multiple flight plans, but for the majority of people
it may work.

Of course, Press 1 would end up being something in Spanish...

Heck, I could even enter my N number and a series of 1's in my cell phone's
memory to have it "auto cancel" with a push of only a couple buttons.

Naah... this is something that just makes too much sense... it'll never
happen.

Jim

[Jose]

> Press 1 now to cancel all flight plans on file for the N number that you
> have entered

Great. Now a fellow club member can cancel my flight plan when he
cancels his? At least it gives FSS an excuse for lost flight plans.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kontiki]

Jim Burns wrote:

> Hmm... How hard would it be for them to configure 1800WXBRIEF to:
> "Useing the touch tone phone enter your N number followed by the # sign."
> Press 1 now to cancel all flight plans on file for the N number that you
> have entered (verify with are you sure you want to cancel all flight plans
> currently on file for "insert electronic voice".) Press 1 for yes, 2 for
> no, 3 to go back to the main menu.
> Press 2 to speak to a briefer

Sheesh... more menus... how about just a separate number.

Another idea would be to add a cancellation function to DUATS.

[kontiki]

Or 1-800-IFR-CANCEL

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:11:47 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>
>So far the privatization has been a great success.
>

I have to admit that I do most of my weather and filing via computer,
only calling FSS for changes and last minute updates.

I can't complain, yet...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> That never happened under the old system?
>>
> Actually, no. I always have had very good service
> under the old system, to be perfectly honest.

I've had long waits, rude service, poor information.

Maybe my luck was different, or maybe my standards are higher than yours.

Or maybe I just would rather pay my own way and not have taxpayers hold my
hand.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...

>
> AOPA appears to be our best ally at this point. They continue to compile
> a
> database of specific instances and will continue to present them to
> Lockheed
> Martin and government officials. The goal being to hold Lockheed to the
> standards set forth in their (LM) contract with FAA.
>
> So here is what we (this means you) need to do: When you experience
> problems with flight service, and you can expect to at this point, please
> use about five minutes of your time to call AOPA and let them know about
> it.
> They will want your N-number, approximate time you called/contacted Flight
> Service, and the specific issues you experienced. 1-800-USA-AOPA is their
> number; push 1 at the menu. I have never had to hold for more than about
> 1
> minute with AOPA, including today. Hopefully your experiences are no
> different--because telling someone about these issues is the only way to
> get
> them fixed.
>
> Please! Take the time to tell AOPA about the problems we are having with
> Flight Service. We need to keep the current "crisis" situation from
> becoming the norm and ultimately losing this valuable and necessary
> resource.

Did anyone do this reporting under the old system?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote

> Please! Take the time to tell AOPA about the problems we are having with
> Flight Service. We need to keep the current "crisis" situation from
> becoming the norm and ultimately losing this valuable and necessary
> resource.

Wow. All of this from the FAA, who is now solidly in bed (so it would seem)
with the airlines.

All of this is spinning (rapidly) out of control, I fear. Is it too late to
save it?

I would say that the next year, or possibly six months, may decide if
general aviation will survive in any manner that is close to as good as what
we have now.

Is that overly pessimistic?

Wow!
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Lol yep... but... I guess he could do that now if he wanted. Sorry, no
flight plan on file.

Maybe press 1 to cancel the oldest flight plan on file, press 9 to shoot
yourself in the head. Thank you for calling?
Jim

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> > Press 1 now to cancel all flight plans on file for the N number that you
> > have entered
>
> Great. Now a fellow club member can cancel my flight plan when he
> cancels his? At least it gives FSS an excuse for lost flight plans.
>
> Jose
> --
> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
universe.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 11, 1:56 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
> This past week I spoke with a CFII out of Michigan who lamented that his and
> his students hold times awaiting a live FSS briefer had significantly
> increased to between 30 minutes to one hour. Coincidentally both AOPA and
> Avweb had articles this week discussing the frustration of long hold times
> many are experiencing.
>
> For those rather myopic pilots whose knee-jerk response is to say to use a
> computer for all briefings and flight plan filings, consider this: Those of
> us who volunteer for Lifeguard flights now have a real concern about being
> able to file an IFR flight plan and receive a briefing over the phone, if
> away from home/office when the call for the flight comes in.
>
> For example, I am on the call list for a heart transplant patient who only
> has a two hour window to arrive into his transplant city's airport. I live
> and base my aircraft in the city where the patient will be departing. With 30
> minutes allotted to drive to the airport and prepare the aircraft for flight
> and another 1 hr and 15 minutes to perform the flight, this leaves very
> little extra time.
>
> Logically if the call comes in while I am away from a computer (restaurant,
> shopping, etc), it makes the most sense to file over the phone and receive a
> briefing while driving to the airport, given that this time is built into the
> narrow window needed. If these hold times are not reduced, this time savings
> step will not be an option.
>
> Additionally, in my case there is a real possibility that a computer will not
> be available at the airport since both my class C airport's FBOs lock up for
> the night between midnight and 5:00 am. I guess filing with clearance
> delivery and receiving a flight briefing from FSS when in the air will be the
> fallback here.
>
> In addition to filling out Lockheed Martin's survey and complaint form, I
> have also emailed AOPA with my concerns about the above scenario. These
> problems with FSS cannot continue.
>
> --
> Peter

I always require my private and instrument students to call the FSS in
addition to using the computer. For new pilots, its very important to
have a human point out significant issues that may have missed (like a
giant icing AIRMET). I've had student pilots miss the fact that the
destination was reporting 2 SM even though every place inroute was
CAVU or instrument students miss a giant icing AIRMET.

-robert, CFII

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Exactly. My post was meant to be tongue in cheek. This is how I
pessimistically envision their "fix" to the situation.
Or they'll sub contract with Dell's PC techs in New Delhi to answer Flight
Plan Only questions. or maybe the XM Radio tech department, ever deal with
those geniuses? Airplane? no, we don't offer any XM services on commercial
flights, I think that's illegal, would you like to talk to our legal
department? Weather? Oh you have to call another number. (by the way, I
won't tell you that office is closed)
Jim

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Burns wrote:
>
> > Hmm... How hard would it be for them to configure 1800WXBRIEF to:
> > "Useing the touch tone phone enter your N number followed by the #
sign."
> > Press 1 now to cancel all flight plans on file for the N number that you
> > have entered (verify with are you sure you want to cancel all flight
plans
> > currently on file for "insert electronic voice".) Press 1 for yes, 2
for
> > no, 3 to go back to the main menu.
> > Press 2 to speak to a briefer
>
> Sheesh... more menus... how about just a separate number.
>
> Another idea would be to add a cancellation function to DUATS.
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:56:58 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>This past week I spoke with a CFII out of Michigan who lamented that his and
>his students hold times awaiting a live FSS briefer had significantly
>increased to between 30 minutes to one hour. Coincidentally both AOPA and
>Avweb had articles this week discussing the frustration of long hold times
>many are experiencing.
>
[...]
>
>In addition to filling out Lockheed Martin's survey and complaint form, I
>have also emailed AOPA with my concerns about the above scenario. These
>problems with FSS cannot continue.


I sent the following e-mail message on May 5, 2007 to the AFSS
Director at LocMart, but haven't received a reply to date:




Dear Mr. Dan Courain, Director, Lockheed Martin FS21 Team:

Below is a report by a frustrated airman:

From: "Peter R." >
Subject: Twenty minutes in the queue awaiting the new and improved
FSS
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:48:46 -0400
Message-ID: >

Called Lockheed Martin FSS this AM for my flight briefing. Spent
20 minutes in the "we are experiencing high call volume" queue
waiting for a live briefer to take my call.

When one finally did, he was servicing my upstate NY state flight
from Phoenix, Az. Nice enough briefer but so much for the local
knowledge.

Wasn't there a promise by Lockheed Martin that wait times would be
one minute or less? In the four years I have been commuting by
aircraft the longest I previously waited for a Buffalo FSS briefer
was five minutes.

--
Peter

He was further frustrated by the error on the FSS feedback website.

Attempting to log into this link <http://www.afss.com/feedback/>
(which I have already created a user ID a few months ago) resulted in
this error message:

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e23'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Cursor operation conflict
C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\WWW.AFSS.COM\MEMBER\../include/logon_form.inc,
line 54

Please notify me when it is again possible to provide feedback about
Lockheed Martin's AFSS operations. Thank you.

Best regards,
Larry Dighera

[Kyle Boatright]

The last 5 times I've called for a brief, the queue has been at least 10-15
minutes long and I had the privilege of speaking to someone 1/4 way across
the continent.

The current situation is pitiful. I can't figure out how they screwed it up
this badly. I mean, it isn't that hard to write a simulation model to tell
you how many briefers you need to have on staff to have a queue of "x"
minutes > 90% of the time.

My guess is that some beancounter at Lockmart wanted to be a hero and cut
back the number of briefers to below the figure the engineers deemed
necessary.

KB


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> This past week I spoke with a CFII out of Michigan who lamented that his
> and
> his students hold times awaiting a live FSS briefer had significantly
> increased to between 30 minutes to one hour. Coincidentally both AOPA and
> Avweb had articles this week discussing the frustration of long hold times
> many are experiencing.

>
> --
> Peter

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> The last 5 times I've called for a brief, the queue has been at least
> 10-15 minutes long and I had the privilege of speaking to someone 1/4 way
> across the continent.
>
> The current situation is pitiful. I can't figure out how they screwed it
> up this badly. I mean, it isn't that hard to write a simulation model to
> tell you how many briefers you need to have on staff to have a queue of
> "x" minutes > 90% of the time.
>
> My guess is that some beancounter at Lockmart wanted to be a hero and cut
> back the number of briefers to below the figure the engineers deemed
> necessary.

Didn't they give some guarantees to get the business, something along "time
on hold", or some such?

And it may be the same problem my business insurance people (in NJ) have had
with bad phone connections since March; sending a FAX took two or three or
even four attempts.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:22:17 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote in
>:

>
>My guess is that some beancounter at Lockmart wanted to be a hero and cut
>back the number of briefers to below the figure the engineers deemed
>necessary.

There should be a penalty clause in the LocMart AFSS contract. Then
LocMart would have an incentive to perform.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:56:58 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>In addition to filling out Lockheed Martin's survey and complaint form, I
>have also emailed AOPA with my concerns about the above scenario. These
>problems with FSS cannot continue.


AOPA attempts to wipe egg from face:

AOPA TAKES FSS COMPLAINTS TO LOCKHEED

When the FAA handed off the Flight Service Station system to
Lockheed Martin more than a year ago, AOPA supported the change
(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/leadnews/190692-1.html),
expecting to see improved service. But last week AOPA officials
met with Lockheed to complain
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070504lockheed.html)
about long hold times, disconnects and lost flight plans. "This is
not the level of service pilots expect," AOPA's Andy Cebula told
Lockheed officials at the meeting. "Lockheed and the FAA must live
up to the standards they set." Many of the problems have been
blamed on computer glitches and on temporary staff shortages as
workers are moved and retrained. Lockheed told AOPA that it plans
to work through all these transitions soon, and pilots should see
an overall improvement in quality by July.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/863-full.html#195162

The inability of LocMart to anticipate computer, staffing, and
training issues BEFORE they impact their performance is sadly
demonstrated by this deluge of FSS user complaints. What prevented
LocMart from through debugging FSS computer systems BEFORE they were
put into service? Why wasn't retraining begun BEFORE moving
personnel? Why weren't additional personnel hired and trained BEFORE
they were needed?

And LocMart's stated TWO MONTH wait for performance improvement
attests to their lack of concern regarding their poor performance.
This avoidable degradation of FSS service establishes the attitude and
lack of concern for the negative impact on the smooth running, and
potential hazards LocMart has introduced into the NAS. And by
implication, this unconcerned nonchalance toward their shortcomings
foretells what may be expected of any private contractor managing the
NAS for profit; when there is no impact on revenue due to poor
service, the contractor has no financial incentive to perform.

The apparent FAA acceptance of LocMart's projected TWO MONTH schedule
to demonstrate improvement in their performance attests to the
administrator's lack of appreciation of the problems caused by
LocMart, and the FAA's apparent lack of diligence in rectifying the
situation in a timely manner. Hopefully the IG's report will point
out LocMart's and the FAA's failures.

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:56:58 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>This past week I spoke with a CFII out of Michigan who lamented that his and
>his students hold times awaiting a live FSS briefer had significantly
>increased to between 30 minutes to one hour. Coincidentally both AOPA and
>Avweb had articles this week discussing the frustration of long hold times
>many are experiencing.

Hey Peter,

Last time you posted, I commented that I had NEVER in 13 years of
flying waited more than 1 minute for the Kanakee FSS. Well, of course
that changed within a few days - specifically, the next time I went
flying. I held on the phone for 5 minutes, eventually hung up and
went flying in the local area.

I had previously checked my home PC for reports of NOTAMs and TFRs,
and the weather was CAVU, so the call to WX-BRIEF was for CYA
purposes.

I would be really ****ed if I was trying to get somewhere, especially
if I was IFR and needed a void time for a release. I suppose we can
write to the FAA to complain, and of course cc our good friends at
AOPA.

-Nathan

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 08:03:11 -0500, Nathan Young
> wrote in
>:

>I would be really ****ed if I was trying to get somewhere, especially
>if I was IFR and needed a void time for a release. I suppose we can
>write to the FAA to complain,

And after you fail to receive a satisfactory response from the FAA,
you can e-mail your Congressional representatives, and point out that
the AFSS contractor is accomplishing the exact opposite of what FAA,
at AOPAs urging, got LocMart to promise. Of course, that presumes
that you might want to see future FAA privatization contracts written
with financial penalty clauses in the event such promises/terms are
not met.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060623afss.html
From the beginning, AOPA demanded performance standards to hold
Lockheed Martin accountable for the commitments they made to serve
pilots," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of regulatory
affairs. "We want to make sure the modernization is done right,
and this Web site allows pilots to report what services are and
aren't working for them."

What customer service standards did Lockheed agree to?

The FAA didn't have performance standards, but Lockheed has set
the bar for high-quality services.

Your phone calls must be answered within 20 seconds and radio
calls within five seconds.

You must receive service from your radio call within 15 seconds.
Pilot reports (pireps) must be processed within 30 seconds and
within 15 seconds if they are urgent.

Briefers must have knowledge of the unique weather conditions in
your area.

They must live up to those standards whether it is a busy, clear
summer day or a slow, dreary day in the winter. And if Lockheed
doesn't live up to those standards, they will face financial
consequences.

"If your telephone or radio call isn't answered promptly, I would
be registering a complaint through their Web site," said Rudinger.
"If pilots report when and where they have service problems,
Lockheed will be able to address and correct those issues."

The modernization of FSS is expected to save taxpayers $1.7
billion over the next 10 years. The FAA initially estimated that
FSS modernization would save taxpayers $2.2 billion over 10 years,
but the agency later revised that cost savings estimate down to
$1.7 billion.



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050201fss.html
FAA will pay Lockheed $1.9 billion over the course of the 10 years



And if you're unsatisfied with LocMart's AFSS privatization
performance now, how well do you think they might perform if awarded
the NextGen contract:


NEXT FOR LOCKHEED, THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/667-full.html#192588)
If Lockheed Martin proves successful with the AFSS transition,
will the airspace system be next? The company recently teamed up
with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University to create the "Airport
of the Future (http://erau.edu/research/erau_research_park.html),"
a technology test bed at Daytona Beach International Airport. This
"teaching airport" will demonstrate how to provide more
comprehensive data to air traffic controllers, airport operators,
security officials and airline dispatchers. "We believe that a
strong transportation infrastructure is critical to our nation's
economic well-being and our citizens' way of life," Judy Marks,
president of Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security
Solutions, said last week



http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-defense/20060623/DCF04323062006-1.html)
Currently composed of over 500 certified airports, 35,000 daily
airline flights, 600,000 pilots, 300 sea ports, 2 million rail
cars, and 11 million trucks, the U.S. transportation system must
continuously evolve to safely meet the needs of more travel and
trade.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Jim Burns" > wrote
>
> > Please! Take the time to tell AOPA about the problems we are having with
> > Flight Service. We need to keep the current "crisis" situation from
> > becoming the norm and ultimately losing this valuable and necessary
> > resource.
>
> Wow. All of this from the FAA, who is now solidly in bed (so it would seem)
> with the airlines.
>
> All of this is spinning (rapidly) out of control, I fear. Is it too late to
> save it?
>
> I would say that the next year, or possibly six months, may decide if
> general aviation will survive in any manner that is close to as good as what
> we have now.
>
> Is that overly pessimistic?

Heck, I think it's an open question whether the whole COUNTRY will
survive in any manner that is close to as good as what we have now, let
alone GA.

rg

---
* This emoticon deliberately left blank.

[Danny Deger]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

> I always require my private and instrument students to call the FSS in
> addition to using the computer. For new pilots, its very important to
> have a human point out significant issues that may have missed (like a
> giant icing AIRMET). I've had student pilots miss the fact that the
> destination was reporting 2 SM even though every place inroute was
> CAVU or instrument students miss a giant icing AIRMET.
>

Your student would have found out soon or later :-)

Having put down some tounge and cheek humor I agree. A trained human
weather briefer is better than using the computer yourself. Having had
said, see my new thread on briefers that give bad briefings in an effort to
keep you on the ground -- especially for a few thunderstorms.

Danny Deger
> -robert, CFII
>

[Peter R.]

On 5/12/2007 9:03:10 AM, Nathan Young wrote:

> Last time you posted, I commented that I had NEVER in 13 years of
> flying waited more than 1 minute for the Kanakee FSS. Well, of course
> that changed within a few days - specifically, the next time I went
> flying. I held on the phone for 5 minutes, eventually hung up and
> went flying in the local area.

Sorry to read that. Thank big business for that change, I guess.

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 5/12/2007 9:03:10 AM, Nathan Young wrote:
>
>> Last time you posted, I commented that I had NEVER in 13 years of
>> flying waited more than 1 minute for the Kanakee FSS. Well, of course
>> that changed within a few days - specifically, the next time I went
>> flying. I held on the phone for 5 minutes, eventually hung up and
>> went flying in the local area.
>
> Sorry to read that. Thank big business for that change, I guess.
>
So does this mean that you're giving up you computer, your car, that spamcan
you fly?

Does it, hotshot?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> "Jim Burns" > wrote
>>
>> > Please! Take the time to tell AOPA about the problems we are having
>> > with
>> > Flight Service. We need to keep the current "crisis" situation from
>> > becoming the norm and ultimately losing this valuable and necessary
>> > resource.
>>
>> Wow. All of this from the FAA, who is now solidly in bed (so it would
>> seem)
>> with the airlines.

And congress.

>>
>> All of this is spinning (rapidly) out of control, I fear. Is it too late
>> to
>> save it?
>>
>> I would say that the next year, or possibly six months, may decide if
>> general aviation will survive in any manner that is close to as good as
>> what
>> we have now.
>>
>> Is that overly pessimistic?
>
> Heck, I think it's an open question whether the whole COUNTRY will
> survive in any manner that is close to as good as what we have now, let
> alone GA.

Leave the FAA as is, and in a dozen years all the spam cans will be
relegated to VFR with virtually NO services.

As the ancient axiom goes, "Be (damn) cafeful what you ask for". (paren'ed
word- mone)

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

kontiki wrote:
> Or 1-800-IFR-CANCEL

The Cancer Research Institute, in NY probably won't be any better at
closing flight plans than LM. They have the WX-CANCEL phone number.

Savannah Electric (has the IFR-CANCel number) may be a bit better, but
they would have to undergo some training.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:21:14 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>On 5/12/2007 9:03:10 AM, Nathan Young wrote:
>
>> Last time you posted, I commented that I had NEVER in 13 years of
>> flying waited more than 1 minute for the Kanakee FSS. Well, of course
>> that changed within a few days - specifically, the next time I went
>> flying. I held on the phone for 5 minutes, eventually hung up and
>> went flying in the local area.
>
>Sorry to read that. Thank big business for that change, I guess.

This is getting interesting:

LOCKHEED MARTIN WANTS MORE FSS MONEY
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/865-full.html#195180)
Lockheed Martin is looking for a 10-percent increase in the fees
it's being paid to take over flight services. According to a
report

(http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/Final_Budget_Statement_w-508.pdf)
from the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector
General, the company, which was awarded a $1.8 billion contract to
assume the function, says it's owed another $177 million, mostly
because the FAA didn't supply accurate labor cost information.
Lockheed Martin's claims are now being assessed. Meanwhile, the
DOT OIG also reported that the FAA has fined Lockheed Martin $9
million for failure to live up to service and performance
guarantees. Pilots in the Washington, D.C., area have recently
complained that FSS changes have resulted in a sharp increase in
dropped flight plans and that briefers, some of whom were in
California, didn't know the procedures for operations in
the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that surrounds the
capital. The OIG is now preparing a report on FSS operations that
will be released later this month.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/865-full.html#195180

As a prelude to ATC privatization, this issue does not inspire
confidence in either party.



http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/Final_Budget_Statement_w-508.pdf
Verification of Labor Qualification and Rates: Labor costs
generally account for the largest portion of support service contract
costs. Our RESULTS audit and FAA’s own review identified incidents
when contractor staff did not meet the expected qualifications for
positions billed. For example, we found that an employee on a contract
was originally billed as an administrative assistant at an hourly rate
of $35. Four months later, the same employee was billed as an analyst
at an hourly rate of $71 without any proof of additional
qualifications. Verifying contract labor qualification for the rates
billed could potentially save FAA millions of dollars for support
services. Based on our RESULTS audit, and as part of an Agency-wide
initiative announced by the FAA Administrator to strengthen internal
controls over procurements, FAA reviewed one of its other
multiple-award programs, BITS II, and found similar problems. For
example, FAA found evidence that multiple contractors had extensively
billed FAA for employees at labor rates that were higher than their
actual education and experience warranted, as specified by terms of
the contract. FAA referred this matter to us for investigation. In one
case, we found that a contractor invoiced FAA for the services of an
employee in the labor category of “Senior Management Analyst” at a
rate of $100 per hour, instead of the proper rate of $40 per hour
based on the employee’s qualifications. Specifically, the “Senior
Management Analyst” category required an individual with 12 years of
direct experience, yet the employee in question had only 2 years of
experience. As a result of our investigation to date, 12 of 13
contractors have agreed to repay a total of $7.9 million in inflated
billings under administrative settlements with FAA. Review of
Contractor-Proposed Prices: Our audit found that FAA awarded contracts
without sufficient competition and price analyses. FAA now requires
that the Deputy Administrator approve all new contracts valued over $1
million that are awarded on a sole-source basis. While this is a step
in the right direction, FAA still needs to strengthen its review of
contractor-proposed prices. When facing inadequate competition from
bidding contractors, FAA’s contracting officers are required to
perform a price analysis to assess the fairness of contractor-proposed
prices. We 18 OIG Report Number FI-2006-072, “Audit of the Federal
Aviation Administration’s RESULTS National Contracting Service,”
September 21, 2006.
26
found that this control was not working in many incidents. For
example, we found a case where the Independent Government Cost
Estimate was prepared by the contractor to whom the contract was
awarded. We plan to follow up on FAA’s use of price and cost analysis
techniques to ensure the reasonableness of prices in contract
proposals. Controls Over the Conversion of Flight Service Stations to
Contract Operations On February 1, 2005, FAA awarded a 5-year,
fixed-price incentive contract (with 5 additional option years) to
Lockheed Martin to operate the Agency’s 58 flight service stations in
the continental United States, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. The contract,
worth about $1.8 billion, represents one of the largest non-defense
outsourcing of services in the Federal Government. FAA anticipates
that by contracting out flight service facilities, it will save $2.2
billion over the 10-year life of the agreement. On October 4, 2005,
Lockheed Martin took over operations at the 58 flight service
stations. We are currently conducting a review of FAA’s controls over
the conversion of flight service stations to contract operations. We
plan on issuing our interim report later this month. Overall, we found
that FAA has implemented effective controls over the initial
transition of flight service stations to contract operations. These
controls include contractual performance measures that require the
contractor to achieve acceptable levels of operational performance and
service and internal mechanisms that oversee the operational and
financial aspects of the program. We also found that the Agency uses
these controls to monitor contract flight service stations and, in
some cases, penalizes the contractor for poor performance. To date,
FAA has imposed approximately $9 million in financial penalties
against the contractor for failing several contractual performance
measures. FAA is requiring the contractor to submit corrective action
plans to resolve the deficient performance measures. In addition, FAA
and the contractor are now entering the next and most critical phase
of the transition. In February, the contractor began efforts to
complete, test, and implement a new software operating system for
flight service stations and consolidate the existing 58 sites into 3
hub and 16 refurbished locations—all by the end of July.19 Any slips
in that schedule could have significant implications to the costs and
anticipated savings of the transition. 19 One facility, which was
originally planned to be refurbished, will now remain open until the
end of the year; it will then be consolidated into the Leesburg hub.
27
In addition, FAA could be facing further reductions to savings as
Lockheed Martin is requesting nearly $177 million in equitable
adjustments to the contract. Most of that adjustment ($147 million) is
based on the contractor’s claim that it was not provided the correct
labor rates when it submitted its bid. In April, FAA provided us with
the first of its planned annual variance reports comparing estimated
and actual first-year costs. This is an important tool in that it will
allow FAA to identify cost overruns, determine the reasons for the
overruns, and allow for adjustments to ensure that savings are
realized. We are currently reviewing the completed variance report and
assessing the contractor’s progress in executing the next phase of the
transition.

Totals: The total NextGen funding projected for this period is
$4,334,700,000. The total Remaining Facilities and Equipment Funds
projected for this period are $11,059,700,000. The grand total
(NextGen Funding plus Remaining Facilities and Equipment Funds) is
$15,394,400,000. Note: NextGen Funding includes the Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Program, the System Wide Information
Management Program, and future projects supporting NextGen. Remaining
Facilities and Equipment funds include funding for the existing
projects, facilities, and support service contracts. Total NextGen
Fiscal Year 2008 to Fiscal Year 2012 from the capital account is $4.3
billion. Source: FAA National Airspace System Capital Investment Plan
FY 2008 to FY 2012