FSS, again

[Paul kgyy]

I made a 400+ NM trip from kgyy to Grand Rapids, MN over the weekend
and experimented with duats and FSS. In both cases, the IFR flight
plan was there when I needed it.

I use Duats in conjunction with Jepp's FlightStar planner. It has a
wonderful ability to overlay the flight plan with weather data
downloaded. The problem is that you need a computer along, so because
of logistics I typically have to do it the night before and hope
nothing has changed. So an "A" on info, and maybe a "D" on
timeliness.

Returning, I had no computer access. The TV forecast was for Tstorms
so I called FSS to get the storm prognosis and plan a route for best
winds. I had the day before used ADDS to get an upper wind picture
and it showed best winds with an easterly route at first, then turning
south on V7 once I got to Green Bay. All I wanted from FSS was
confirmation that the pattern was still valid. All the briefer seemed
able to do was to read winds aloft at Joliet, Marquette, MI, etc. none
of which was close to my course. He also seemed unable to estimate
when the approaching line of Tstorms was expected to hit Grand Rapids
(meanwhile I'm watching the Weather Channel and estimating 30
minutes). He did file my flight plan for me based on the ADDS info I
had from the day before. D on timeliness, D on accuracy.

OK, drive to the airport, turn in the crew car, clouds thickening to
the west, a few drops of rain starting to fall. Fire up the IO360,
turn on the avionics... My PDA with XM weather shows a broad area of
rain showers, some yellow and red, approaching the airport. The
Stormscope shows lightning within 25 miles, but scattered strikes.

So we took off to the east, called ATC to pick up the flight plan,
maneuvered around rain cells using XM and stormscope, eventually flew
into the clear. We watched a big rain cell with lightning hovering
near Oshkosh but were comforted that it didn't move much. We checked
METARS on the PDA along the course ahead and they were uniformly good
so we were able to enjoy the rest of the trip.

I'm really beginning to wonder if FSS, particularly in its current
Lockheed form, has any useful service to provide anymore, though
admittedly, there is substantial cost to get the onboard avionics.
But I really think it's worth the money in providing better info than
you can get anywhere else in real time.

[El Maximo]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> I'm really beginning to wonder if FSS, particularly in its current
> Lockheed form, has any useful service to provide anymore, though
> admittedly, there is substantial cost to get the onboard avionics.
> But I really think it's worth the money in providing better info than
> you can get anywhere else in real time.
>

I don't normally follow conspiracy theories, but they could be intentionally
driving away 'customers' to lower their future costs.

Their small fine could easily be absorbed if they reduce their workload by
10%

[BT]

a recent discussion with a cross country pilot, he was able to find out from
his FSS briefer.. half a country away.. that Lockheed is going through a
"training phase" and that the available staffing is reduced while the others
are in training...

that's their story and they seem to be sticking too it..

BT

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I made a 400+ NM trip from kgyy to Grand Rapids, MN over the weekend
> and experimented with duats and FSS. In both cases, the IFR flight
> plan was there when I needed it.
>
> I use Duats in conjunction with Jepp's FlightStar planner. It has a
> wonderful ability to overlay the flight plan with weather data
> downloaded. The problem is that you need a computer along, so because
> of logistics I typically have to do it the night before and hope
> nothing has changed. So an "A" on info, and maybe a "D" on
> timeliness.
>
> Returning, I had no computer access. The TV forecast was for Tstorms
> so I called FSS to get the storm prognosis and plan a route for best
> winds. I had the day before used ADDS to get an upper wind picture
> and it showed best winds with an easterly route at first, then turning
> south on V7 once I got to Green Bay. All I wanted from FSS was
> confirmation that the pattern was still valid. All the briefer seemed
> able to do was to read winds aloft at Joliet, Marquette, MI, etc. none
> of which was close to my course. He also seemed unable to estimate
> when the approaching line of Tstorms was expected to hit Grand Rapids
> (meanwhile I'm watching the Weather Channel and estimating 30
> minutes). He did file my flight plan for me based on the ADDS info I
> had from the day before. D on timeliness, D on accuracy.
>
> OK, drive to the airport, turn in the crew car, clouds thickening to
> the west, a few drops of rain starting to fall. Fire up the IO360,
> turn on the avionics... My PDA with XM weather shows a broad area of
> rain showers, some yellow and red, approaching the airport. The
> Stormscope shows lightning within 25 miles, but scattered strikes.
>
> So we took off to the east, called ATC to pick up the flight plan,
> maneuvered around rain cells using XM and stormscope, eventually flew
> into the clear. We watched a big rain cell with lightning hovering
> near Oshkosh but were comforted that it didn't move much. We checked
> METARS on the PDA along the course ahead and they were uniformly good
> so we were able to enjoy the rest of the trip.
>
> I'm really beginning to wonder if FSS, particularly in its current
> Lockheed form, has any useful service to provide anymore, though
> admittedly, there is substantial cost to get the onboard avionics.
> But I really think it's worth the money in providing better info than
> you can get anywhere else in real time.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:40:04 -0700, "BT" > wrote
in >:

>a recent discussion with a cross country pilot, he was able to find out from
>his FSS briefer.. half a country away.. that Lockheed is going through a
>"training phase" and that the available staffing is reduced while the others
>are in training...

Shouldn't LockMart have anticipated the unprecedented delays in FSS
service this half staffed FSS would cause its customers, and taken
steps to avoid its consequences?

Does this method of training during live operation of FSS somehow
absolve LockMart from responsibility for their resulting failure to
meet their stated, and contract mandated, goals?

Is this the same level of responsibility, professional standard, and
disregard for safety and performance that one can expect from the
contractor who implements NextGen should it be authorized?

If redesigning FSS, that grew up along with aviation over the decades,
means scrapping the insights that experience had shown were vital to
its utility, will the implementation of NextGen similarly mean
discarding the worlds best running ATC system in favor of untried, ill
conceived, and inferior systems?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>Shouldn't LockMart have anticipated the unprecedented delays in FSS
>service this half staffed FSS would cause its customers, and taken
>steps to avoid its consequences?
>
>Does this method of training during live operation of FSS somehow
>absolve LockMart from responsibility for their resulting failure to
>meet their stated, and contract mandated, goals?
>
>Is this the same level of responsibility, professional standard, and
>disregard for safety and performance that one can expect from the
>contractor who implements NextGen should it be authorized?


In the real world, LockMart would have developed a migration plan that
absolutely minimized disruptions in service and provided for adequate
staffing. This is done all the time at large corporations. Of course, in
the real world, LockMart would have customers that would take their business
elsewhere after being exposed to their doltfest. Unfortunately for us, we
are not LockMart's customers. The FAA is, and the FAA seems quite willing to
accept the current level of service with only some minor grumbling and
sanctions.

I think you can be assured that this level of responsibility and
performance will prevail when (actually if) NextGen comes into being. FAA
upper management has a dismal record when it comes to managing system
improvement projects. I still remember the last time the FAA said they were
going to overhaul the ATC system (early 90s?). Billions were spent on
basically nothing before Congress finally investigated and called a halt to
the boondoggle. The FAA managers that appeared before congress were
absolutely clueless. As I recall, the FAA shuffled them around to other
jobs, but none were fired. In short, managerial incompetence is more the
rule at the FAA, rather than the exception.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:22:15 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote in <73ff2e3f81349@uwe>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>Shouldn't LockMart have anticipated the unprecedented delays in FSS
>>service this half staffed FSS would cause its customers, and taken
>>steps to avoid its consequences?
>>
>>Does this method of training during live operation of FSS somehow
>>absolve LockMart from responsibility for their resulting failure to
>>meet their stated, and contract mandated, goals?
>>
>>Is this the same level of responsibility, professional standard, and
>>disregard for safety and performance that one can expect from the
>>contractor who implements NextGen should it be authorized?
>
>
> In the real world, LockMart would have developed a migration plan that
>absolutely minimized disruptions in service and provided for adequate
>staffing. This is done all the time at large corporations. Of course, in
>the real world, LockMart would have customers that would take their business
>elsewhere after being exposed to their doltfest. Unfortunately for us, we
>are not LockMart's customers. The FAA is, and the FAA seems quite willing to
>accept the current level of service with only some minor grumbling and
>sanctions.

If you listen to Robert Poole's AvWeb interview* defending
privatization, he says FAA has the option to yank the contract from
LockMart, and give it to another contractor if they fail to perform.
That sounds like an out-of-the-frying-pan, competitive pretense,
totally unworkable option to me.

> I think you can be assured that this level of responsibility and
>performance will prevail when (actually if) NextGen comes into being.

NextGen is looking pretty iffy at present if this news blurb is
accurate:

WHITHER REAUTHORIZATION?

What if they gave an FAA reauthorization bill and no one came?
That question may be on the minds of many as one supposed deadline
after another for the House of Representatives to develop its
proposed version of a legislation reauthorizing the agency -- and
hopefully disposing of user fees -- comes and goes. First, the
scuttlebutt was that a proposal would be ready by Memorial Day.
Then, we were told mid-June. Now, it appears a political
disagreement involving the agency's existing contract with air
traffic controllers is the hang up. That might be a good thing,
depending on where you are on the user-fee debate and considering
it means other elements of the bill seemingly have been agreed to
-- but bad when you consider that the contract is likely to be a
major bone of contention, possibly holding up the whole show later
this year. It seems House Democrats are awaiting results from
ongoing discussions between the FAA and the air traffic
controllers union, NATCA. According to published reports, if the
two sides can't come to an agreement regarding ATC personnel, the
House version of the bill would include a provision rolling the
FAA's contract with controllers back to 1998. That contract was
widely seen as too expensive and, if Democrats take that tack on
developing a reauthorization bill, they will do so without support
from House Republicans. So far, their desire has been for a
bipartisan bill, though there still hasn't been a final proposal
introduced in the House.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/889-full.html#195437


>FAA
>upper management has a dismal record when it comes to managing system
>improvement projects. I still remember the last time the FAA said they were
>going to overhaul the ATC system (early 90s?). Billions were spent on
>basically nothing before Congress finally investigated and called a halt to
>the boondoggle. The FAA managers that appeared before congress were
>absolutely clueless. As I recall, the FAA shuffled them around to other
>jobs, but none were fired. In short, managerial incompetence is more the
>rule at the FAA, rather than the exception.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


* (Click here (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20070618) to listen
to the Reason Foundation's Robert Poole on why aviation user fees
would be good for airspace users.)

[BT]

Larry.. I agree.. LockMart Screwed UP and should be penalized for failure to
present the service they are contracted for.

I'm just "stating" their "excuse"
Excuse not acceptable
BT

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:40:04 -0700, "BT" > wrote
> in >:
>
>>a recent discussion with a cross country pilot, he was able to find out
>>from
>>his FSS briefer.. half a country away.. that Lockheed is going through a
>>"training phase" and that the available staffing is reduced while the
>>others
>>are in training...
>
> Shouldn't LockMart have anticipated the unprecedented delays in FSS
> service this half staffed FSS would cause its customers, and taken
> steps to avoid its consequences?
>
> Does this method of training during live operation of FSS somehow
> absolve LockMart from responsibility for their resulting failure to
> meet their stated, and contract mandated, goals?
>
> Is this the same level of responsibility, professional standard, and
> disregard for safety and performance that one can expect from the
> contractor who implements NextGen should it be authorized?
>
> If redesigning FSS, that grew up along with aviation over the decades,
> means scrapping the insights that experience had shown were vital to
> its utility, will the implementation of NextGen similarly mean
> discarding the worlds best running ATC system in favor of untried, ill
> conceived, and inferior systems?

[Blanche]

In article <73ff2e3f81349@uwe>, JGalban via AviationKB.com <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> I think you can be assured that this level of responsibility and
>performance will prevail when (actually if) NextGen comes into being. FAA
>upper management has a dismal record when it comes to managing system
>improvement projects. I still remember the last time the FAA said they were
>going to overhaul the ATC system (early 90s?). Billions were spent on
>basically nothing before Congress finally investigated and called a halt to
>the boondoggle. The FAA managers that appeared before congress were
>absolutely clueless. As I recall, the FAA shuffled them around to other
>jobs, but none were fired. In short, managerial incompetence is more the
>rule at the FAA, rather than the exception.

Early 80s to 1993 when Congress ended the program after $9B.
After 5-7 years of analysis & requirements definitions, the contract was
awarded in the late 80s. The losing contractor
went to court and won (stole?) the contract away. Then proceeded to perform
almost the entire process over again, thus proving once again, the
NIH syndrome is rampant.

[Matt Whiting]

Blanche wrote:
> In article <73ff2e3f81349@uwe>, JGalban via AviationKB.com <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>> I think you can be assured that this level of responsibility and
>> performance will prevail when (actually if) NextGen comes into being. FAA
>> upper management has a dismal record when it comes to managing system
>> improvement projects. I still remember the last time the FAA said they were
>> going to overhaul the ATC system (early 90s?). Billions were spent on
>> basically nothing before Congress finally investigated and called a halt to
>> the boondoggle. The FAA managers that appeared before congress were
>> absolutely clueless. As I recall, the FAA shuffled them around to other
>> jobs, but none were fired. In short, managerial incompetence is more the
>> rule at the FAA, rather than the exception.
>
> Early 80s to 1993 when Congress ended the program after $9B.
> After 5-7 years of analysis & requirements definitions, the contract was
> awarded in the late 80s. The losing contractor
> went to court and won (stole?) the contract away. Then proceeded to perform
> almost the entire process over again, thus proving once again, the
> NIH syndrome is rampant.

If you spend 7 years in the requirements definition phase, the system
you build will be obsolete when you START to build it rather than when
you are done. More than one year to define requirements ludicrous.

Matt

[Ridge]

Now that they moved away, I've about given up on FSS for short local
flights, I just get the weather from ADDS and file with DUATS.

What is the small fine you mentioned?


"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>> I'm really beginning to wonder if FSS, particularly in its current
>> Lockheed form, has any useful service to provide anymore, though
>> admittedly, there is substantial cost to get the onboard avionics.
>> But I really think it's worth the money in providing better info than
>> you can get anywhere else in real time.
>>
>
> I don't normally follow conspiracy theories, but they could be
> intentionally driving away 'customers' to lower their future costs.
>
> Their small fine could easily be absorbed if they reduce their workload by
> 10%
>