got a call from BDR FSS

[Kevin Clarke]

I'll try to make this long story brief.

On 7/29 I filed via DUATS an IFR departure from KFIT to KBHB via ENE.
This was at 1200Z. My proposed time off was 1500z. My morning went
quicker so when I got to the airport I called BDR FSS on the RCO 118.025
and amended my time off for 1300Z and filed for an alternate KBGR.

They had no record of my flight plan and called into Boston to get the
info, which I thought was strange. After my runup I called BDR for my
clearance and the controller said, you want to leave now? I wanted the
clearance before I went wheels up because there was SCT at 020. I didn't
want to play dodge-ums, while copying the clearance and programming the
GNS. He said he couldn't get a clearance and would I depart VFR and
pickup my clearance with BOS APPCH on 118.125 (or some such freq). he
commented that that was a good frequency to use. Which I thought was
strange terminology. Normally in this area out of Fitchburg we dial up
BOS on 124.4. But wanting to get underway I departed VFR, dialed up BOS
for the clearance. They seemed surprised I was airborne and had to
scramble to get me the clearance. I got vectored south-east (hdg 160)
which is unusual for a departure out of KFIT but eventually got my
clearance and was turned on course direct ENE.

All along the route as I got transferred from controller to controller
they kept asking "where are you going?". So something was lost and not
in the system. If you check out flightaware.com (N15892) I apparently
diverted to Portland on this flight. Which I did not, it was 5000' below
me. :-) The whole thing was very strange.

The flight was uneventful (I shot a much better ILS through actual this
time into KBHB). I called up the comment line that was posted in this
newsgroup recently and reported my experience, plus some other FSS
weirdness that I experienced the next day trying to get a standard
briefing. Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.

Anyway, yesterday the Ops Mgr from BDR called me as a followup and went
thru all this with me. He was very helpful and wanted to get things
right, which I thought was great. He commented that asking me to depart
VFR was a big no-no and that the frequency they gave me for BOS was also
wrong. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear the resolution but wanted to share
that the system of follow thru anyway is working and some of the folks
there are trying to make this FSS debacle right.

KC

[Jay Honeck]

> Anyway, yesterday the Ops Mgr from BDR called me as a followup and went
> thru all this with me. He was very helpful and wanted to get things
> right, which I thought was great. He commented that asking me to depart
> VFR was a big no-no and that the frequency they gave me for BOS was also
> wrong. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear the resolution but wanted to share
> that the system of follow thru anyway is working and some of the folks
> there are trying to make this FSS debacle right.

I suspect they'll get this worked out soon enough. Every person I
talk to now at FSS is helpful, friendly, and knowledgable (if not,
perhaps, about the local Iowa area), and apparently interested in
doing a good job -- which was not always the case before Lock-Mart.

Anyone who has ever lived through massive management changes in an
organization knows that there are always a subset of disgruntled
employees who can do JUST enough harm to screw up everything in the
short term. (I know this because I was one of the "disgruntled", way
back in my early corporate career.) It takes a while for management
to weed them out, or wall them off, (or, if we're talking REALLY big
companies, promote them), but once done, everything works itself out.

I'm sure there will be major tweaking to come. In any change of this
scale, there always is. Once they've got the right staffing levels,
and their computer systems working together properly, I think we're
gonna like what we see -- but in the near term it'll suck for you IFR
guys.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:26:01 -0400, Kevin Clarke >
wrote in >:

>Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
>local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
>flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.

That shouldn't be. A pilot needs to know weather trends and TFRs for
local flights as well as cross country.

>Anyway, yesterday the Ops Mgr from BDR called me as a followup and went
>thru all this with me. He was very helpful and wanted to get things
>right, which I thought was great. He commented that asking me to depart
>VFR was a big no-no and that the frequency they gave me for BOS was also
>wrong. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear the resolution but wanted to share
>that the system of follow thru anyway is working and some of the folks
>there are trying to make this FSS debacle right.

It will be interesting to see if your conclusion is warranted when we
learn how this issue was resolved. Did you note the contact
information for the Ops Mgr from BDR, so you can follow up in the
event he doesn't get back to you?

[Peter R.]

On 8/16/2007 9:26:03 AM, Kevin Clarke wrote:

> Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.

Total BS, but you knew that.

--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:57:41 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in >:

>Once they've got the right staffing levels,
>and their computer systems working together properly, I think we're
>gonna like what we see

With the exception of briefers with local metrological knowledge as we
had before the FSS privatization, what do you think we're going to
like about the new FSS?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:25:25 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>On 8/16/2007 9:26:03 AM, Kevin Clarke wrote:
>
>> Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
>> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
>> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.
>
>Total BS, but you knew that.

Perhaps not total. The system may be programmed (currently) to
require a destination different from the departure point. Hopefully
that will be corrected.

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:48:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:25:25 -0400, "Peter R." >
>wrote in >:
>
>>On 8/16/2007 9:26:03 AM, Kevin Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
>>> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
>>> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.
>>
>>Total BS, but you knew that.
>
>Perhaps not total. The system may be programmed (currently) to
>require a destination different from the departure point. Hopefully
>that will be corrected.

Cant the system fudge it with "flight from BHB to BHB via
<somevornearby>"?

How about an area briefiing, area beging BHB?

[Peter R.]

On 8/16/2007 10:48:17 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Perhaps not total. The system may be programmed (currently) to
> require a destination different from the departure point. Hopefully
> that will be corrected.

It is irrelevant what the system is currently programmed to do. Area
briefings are a service that is provided by FSS because there are many
examples of their necessity, as you know. Touch and goes in the pattern, air
work for students or proficiency-concerned pilots, practice IFR approaches,
etc.

If the system is only designed to provide a point-A to point-B routing
briefing, the briefer should be competent enough to work around that
limitation. To tell a pilot that s/he is unable to provide an area briefing
is doing nothing more than admitting his/her ineptitude.

--
Peter

[Kevin Clarke]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:26:01 -0400, Kevin Clarke >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>> Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
>> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
>> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.
>>
>
> That shouldn't be. A pilot needs to know weather trends and TFRs for
> local flights as well as cross country.
>
I know. I ended up giving him a fudge routing of BHB-PWM-BHB, then it
worked. I didn't have my AF/D with me at the time to give him the ICAO
for Old Town or Belfast which were the first ones I chose. The briefer
was unfamiliar with the area. I think I was speaking with Leesburg, Va.
Sigh.

>
>> Anyway, yesterday the Ops Mgr from BDR called me as a followup and went
>> thru all this with me. He was very helpful and wanted to get things
>> right, which I thought was great. He commented that asking me to depart
>> VFR was a big no-no and that the frequency they gave me for BOS was also
>> wrong. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear the resolution but wanted to share
>> that the system of follow thru anyway is working and some of the folks
>> there are trying to make this FSS debacle right.
>>
>
> It will be interesting to see if your conclusion is warranted when we
> learn how this issue was resolved. Did you note the contact
> information for the Ops Mgr from BDR, so you can follow up in the
> event he doesn't get back to you?
>
I did get that info. I suspect he'll get back to me. He was very helpful
about all this and more than a little embarrassed.

KC

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
s.com
>
> Once they've got the right staffing levels,
> and their computer systems working together properly, I think we're
> gonna like what we see -- but in the near term it'll suck for you IFR
> guys.

Actually, I think it sucks more for VFR guys. :) I've gotten much more
acquainted with DUAT, AOPA RTFP and other online tools to get weather and
file flight plans. I rarely need to call FSS lately.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I suspect they'll get this worked out soon enough. Every person I
> talk to now at FSS is helpful, friendly, and knowledgable (if not,
> perhaps, about the local Iowa area), and apparently interested in
> doing a good job -- which was not always the case before Lock-Mart.
>
Their good intentions aren't going to add up to a hill of beans until
the first person takes their so-called "friendly advice" and ends up
in a freaking smoking hole. The entire casual nature of an essential
to air service is galling. This MUST be resolved. It's too bad that
the FAA has abdicated their responsibility for aviation safety to follow
the political line dictated by the contributions of the airline industry.

[Ron Natalie]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:25:25 -0400, "Peter R." >
> wrote in >:
>
>> On 8/16/2007 9:26:03 AM, Kevin Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
>>> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
>>> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.
>> Total BS, but you knew that.
>
> Perhaps not total. The system may be programmed (currently) to
> require a destination different from the departure point. Hopefully
> that will be corrected.
>
It shouldn't have been. It has always been legitimate and the old
FAA-run computers never had a freaking problem with it.

It's just the freaking Lockmart outsourced to the third world, no
motivation or incentive, to do things safe or right that screws it up.

[James]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:57:41 -0700, Jay Honeck >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>Once they've got the right staffing levels,
>>and their computer systems working together properly, I think we're
>>gonna like what we see
>
>
> With the exception of briefers with local metrological knowledge as we
> had before the FSS privatization, what do you think we're going to
> like about the new FSS?
>
Being from Australia, where Flight Service was abolished about 20 years
ago, the fact the we still have Flight Service is good. I have noticed
that they are getting better. I can get a briefing at the flying club
now quicker that I can get the information up on DUAT.The phone at the
club is right in front of the computer. I'd rather have a bit of
change, than no Flight Serice. I did experience some not so helpful
briefers with the old flight service. There was one guy who should have
been a race caller, he talked so fast.


James.

[John T]

"Kevin Clarke" > wrote in message

>>
>>> Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
>>> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
>>> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.
>>
>> That shouldn't be. A pilot needs to know weather trends and TFRs for
>> local flights as well as cross country.
>>
> I know. I ended up giving him a fudge routing of BHB-PWM-BHB, then it
> worked. I didn't have my AF/D with me at the time to give him the ICAO
> for Old Town or Belfast which were the first ones I chose. The briefer
> was unfamiliar with the area. I think I was speaking with Leesburg,
> Va. Sigh.

If you were speaking with a Leesburg FSS rep, he should have known better.
They've upgraded to the OASIS system and since then need a
Fix/Radial/Distance in the route field for local flights or pattern work.

From another forum (dcpilots.net):
"Just file the departure and destination as the same ident, but use a Fix
Radial Distance in the route field, just as she explained. Example:
Departure: JYO, Route: JYO360001, Destination: JYO. It really is that easy
(JYO is the Fix, using the 360 Radial, at 001 NM Distance). With regards to
briefers telling people that they couldn't do that, they are wrong, but
believe that they are right."



Trust me. This does work even if the briefer doesn't think it will.
Eventually they'll all see it in action.


--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:17:30 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote in >:

>The entire casual nature of an essential to air service is galling.
>This MUST be resolved.

You're talking like FSS and the NAS are inherently governmental. One
of the first things the Bush administration did was to reverse Clinton
on that issue to pave the way for ATC privatization.

>It's too bad that the FAA has abdicated their responsibility for aviation
>safety to follow the political line dictated by the contributions of the
>airline industry.

The executive cabinet, including the secretary of transportation, work
for Bush. If they don't support the regime's line, they end up like
the DOJ attorneys whom Gonzales terminated. Ex marketeer, Karl Rove,
had the morals and ethics of a typical carnival barker: political
power trumped ethics, scientific facts, prudent statesmanship, and the
welfare of the nation. Disgraceful.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:07:15 -0400, James >
wrote in >:

>I'd rather have a bit of change, than no Flight Serice.

Of course. But why should we have to make that choice?

The issue with privatizing FSS is that it opens the way for
privatizing ATC. I don't believe that would be appropriate nor
beneficial to safety nor security. Further, it is the airline
manufacturers who have ATC solutions on the shelf ready for
deployment. Can there be any doubt of the bias toward air carriers,
their customers, that would be exhibited by Boeing and LockMart should
the acquire the power to operate the NAS? Beware the camel's nose ...

[Jay Honeck]

> >Once they've got the right staffing levels,
> >and their computer systems working together properly, I think we're
> >gonna like what we see
>
> With the exception of briefers with local metrological knowledge as we
> had before the FSS privatization, what do you think we're going to
> like about the new FSS?

I've already noticed that the new briefers are treating me like the
CUSTOMER, not an annoyance, as some of the gummint FSS guys would
occasionally do. It's a matter of attitude and tone which makes
calling them much more pleasant.

They also clearly have access to superior computer equipment, and are
being encouraged to use every tool at their disposal to help us,
including websites like ADDs. This was NOT the case with the old FSS
guys, whom I often found were using less-capable weather forecasting
tools than I was.

Finally, the fact that many of the new guys are real pilots sure gives
me a sense of confidence that I'm talking to someone who actually
walks the walk. I rarely had the impression with old FSS.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

Ummm, I'm finding the new FSS people to be polite and eager to help...
Sorry if that bursts anyone's preconceived hostility to the new
operators of the FSS system...

denny

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

I see on http://www.afss.com/transition/ that BDR AFSS is scheduled to
be closed on September 24 which is delayed from August 20 which was
delayed from July 9.

Unfortunately those delays can't keep going on forever. After all, it's
a private company now, not the government.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 16, 8:26 am, Kevin Clarke > wrote:
> I'll try to make this long story brief.
>
> On 7/29 I filed via DUATS an IFR departure from KFIT to KBHB via ENE.
> This was at 1200Z. My proposed time off was 1500z. My morning went
> quicker so when I got to the airport I called BDR FSS on the RCO 118.025
> and amended my time off for 1300Z and filed for an alternate KBGR.
>
> They had no record of my flight plan and called into Boston to get the
> info, which I thought was strange. After my runup I called BDR for my
> clearance and the controller said, you want to leave now? I wanted the
> clearance before I went wheels up because there was SCT at 020. I didn't
> want to play dodge-ums, while copying the clearance and programming the
> GNS. He said he couldn't get a clearance and would I depart VFR and
> pickup my clearance with BOS APPCH on 118.125 (or some such freq). he
> commented that that was a good frequency to use. Which I thought was
> strange terminology. Normally in this area out of Fitchburg we dial up
> BOS on 124.4. But wanting to get underway I departed VFR, dialed up BOS
> for the clearance. They seemed surprised I was airborne and had to
> scramble to get me the clearance. I got vectored south-east (hdg 160)
> which is unusual for a departure out of KFIT but eventually got my
> clearance and was turned on course direct ENE.
>
> All along the route as I got transferred from controller to controller
> they kept asking "where are you going?". So something was lost and not
> in the system. If you check out flightaware.com (N15892) I apparently
> diverted to Portland on this flight. Which I did not, it was 5000' below
> me. :-) The whole thing was very strange.
>
> The flight was uneventful (I shot a much better ILS through actual this
> time into KBHB). I called up the comment line that was posted in this
> newsgroup recently and reported my experience, plus some other FSS
> weirdness that I experienced the next day trying to get a standard
> briefing. Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.
>
> Anyway, yesterday the Ops Mgr from BDR called me as a followup and went
> thru all this with me. He was very helpful and wanted to get things
> right, which I thought was great. He commented that asking me to depart
> VFR was a big no-no and that the frequency they gave me for BOS was also
> wrong. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear the resolution but wanted to share
> that the system of follow thru anyway is working and some of the folks
> there are trying to make this FSS debacle right.
>
> KC

Interesting...

Working and really working are two different things.

There are two questions about the FSS "modernization" which are in
play.

The first is a tactical one, can Lockmart provide the service that
pilots need to fly safely? My guess is that eventually things improve
and get better.

The more pressing one, the one that AOPA and others seemed to
completly fall down on, is what is the role of aviation in The
Republic and what is the role of the government in aviation. I
realize that to some degree this is politics and I"ll try and stay out
of that.

But privatization of the FSS system sends a clear message that
nurturing aviation ad maintaining its viability at all levels is no
longer a function of the government of The Republic...It is that
simple.

I think we will all come to regret that as events move forward,
particularly as the next step unless there is a change in thinking in
DC is that the ATC system is next.

If you like how the space shuttle system is operated...you will love
Lock Mart running the FSS.

Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:16:55 -0700, Luke Skywalker
> wrote in
. com>:

>
>There are two questions about the FSS "modernization" which are in
>play.
>
>The first is a tactical one, can Lockmart provide the service that
>pilots need to fly safely? My guess is that eventually things improve
>and get better.

Given the structure LockMart has imposed on privatized FSS, it is
unlikely that briefers with local metrological knowledge will ever be
available again as they were pre-privatization. That is not an
improvement in service nor will it get better.

>The more pressing one, the one that AOPA and others seemed to
>completly fall down on, is what is the role of aviation in The
>Republic and what is the role of the government in aviation. I
>realize that to some degree this is politics and I"ll try and stay out
>of that.


https://www.reason.org/atcreform09.shtml
Air Traffic Control Reform Newsletter

Issue No. 9
December 2002

By Robert Poole


Controllers, FAA Mistaken on Privatization

Holiday travelers can expect to be greeted at many airports by
off-duty air traffic controllers protesting an alleged Bush
Administration plan to "farm out to the lowest bidder" their
vitally important jobs. In response, the Federal Aviation
Administration has managed to muddy the waters, rather than
defending the validity of what the Bush folks are actually doing.

First, let's clarify the specific change in federal policy which
the President announced last June. He signed a one-sentence
executive order re-affirming that air traffic control (ATC) is not
"inherently governmental." That order overturned a last-minute
executive order issued by President Clinton, which slipped the
"inherently governmental" language into a broader directive on
reforming ATC. Most aviation experts agree that ATC is a high-tech
service business, which can be provided either by government or by
commercial entities—always operating under stringent governmental
safety regulation. It's the safety regulation that most would
agree is inherently governmental. ...


If ATC isn't inherently governmental, why did the government shut it
down immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks?

>But privatization of the FSS system sends a clear message that
>nurturing aviation a[n]d maintaining its viability at all levels is no
>longer a function of the government of The Republic...It is that
>simple.

Sort of like letting the Arabs run the US ports, right?

>I think we will all come to regret that as events move forward,
>particularly as the next step unless there is a change in thinking in
>DC is that the ATC system is next.

You think? :-(

>If you like how the space shuttle system is operated...you will love
>Lock Mart running the FSS.
>
>Robert

You forgot to mention dismantling the world's safest ATC system and
replacing it with a vulnerable satellite-based system, user fees, and
handing the National Airspace System over to the corporate airline
industry. Perhaps the Bush administration can award a non-competitive
ATC contract to the Arabs instead. :-(

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in . com>:

>> >Once they've got the right staffing levels,
>> >and their computer systems working together properly, I think we're
>> >gonna like what we see
>>
>> With the exception of briefers with local metrological knowledge as we
>> had before the FSS privatization, what do you think we're going to
>> like about the new FSS?
>
>I've already noticed that the new briefers are treating me like the
>CUSTOMER, not an annoyance, as some of the gummint FSS guys would
>occasionally do. It's a matter of attitude and tone which makes
>calling them much more pleasant.

Personally, I would prefer not trade a briefer with local metrological
knowledge for one adept at shmoozing.

>They also clearly have access to superior computer equipment, and are
>being encouraged to use every tool at their disposal to help us,
>including websites like ADDs. This was NOT the case with the old FSS
>guys, whom I often found were using less-capable weather forecasting
>tools than I was.

Aviation Digital Data Service was an experimental service, and as
such, it wasn't accepted by FAA for use in complying with preflight
regulations. I guess that has evolved now.

>Finally, the fact that many of the new guys are real pilots sure gives
>me a sense of confidence that I'm talking to someone who actually
>walks the walk. I rarely had the impression with old FSS.

How do you fell about FSS privatization paving the way for ATC user
fees?

[Jay Honeck]

> How do you fell about FSS privatization paving the way for ATC user
> fees?

I don't see the issues as related at all, despite what the FAA may
wish, or AOPA may imply.

User's fees are a dumb, inefficient way to collect taxes, whether the
people working the tower are gummint or private employees.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:52:17 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>Personally, I would prefer not trade a briefer with local metrological
>knowledge for one adept at shmoozing.

You always mention "local knowledge".

Do you ever leave the area of the FSS that you've called? Personally,
I'm much more interested in the arrival conditions vs. my departure
conditions. The FSS briefer that I talk to in person were always on
the departure end.

[Denny]

Well, the nose of the camel is having the gummint require us to check
in with ATC on every flight (and pay their fees) as is common in some
european countries...

As far as me personally, ATC could vanish and it would affect me very
little - and that 'little' could be worked around... I file IFR less
and less... When I do not file IFR I do not need ATC...
I can, do, and have, flown from one border of this country to the
other without talking to ATC...
Without ATC, if the weather is IFR I would have to lay over until it
improves... That would affect roughly 10% of my trips... From my
point of view an acceptable price for having the gummint off my
back...

denny

[john smith[_2_]]

Warning... thread drift.

After watching 60 Minutes last night, I am more convinced than ever that
Lock Mart is a disaster and the federal government is so in bed with
them that we're screwed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:30:58 -0700, Denny > wrote
in om>:

>As far as me personally, ATC could vanish and it would affect me very
>little - and that 'little' could be worked around... I file IFR less
>and less... When I do not file IFR I do not need ATC...
>I can, do, and have, flown from one border of this country to the
>other without talking to ATC...

Out here in the Los Angeles basin, the air traffic is so thick, that I
wouldn't consider not using Radar Advisory Service on VFR flights. But
if I had to pay for it, I might reconsider that decision.

Privatized, user fee based, ATC must necessarily negatively impact air
safety, because it provides a disincentive (dollar price) against the
use of aviation services meant to enhance safety.

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:30:58 -0700, Denny > wrote
> in om>:
>
>>As far as me personally, ATC could vanish and it would affect me very
>>little - and that 'little' could be worked around... I file IFR less
>>and less... When I do not file IFR I do not need ATC...
>>I can, do, and have, flown from one border of this country to the
>>other without talking to ATC...
>
> Out here in the Los Angeles basin, the air traffic is so thick, that I
> wouldn't consider not using Radar Advisory Service on VFR flights. But
> if I had to pay for it, I might reconsider that decision.
>
> Privatized, user fee based, ATC must necessarily negatively impact air
> safety, because it provides a disincentive (dollar price) against the
> use of aviation services meant to enhance safety.
>

If, with a simple box upgrade, you could be sure that you knew where all the traffic was, would you still want the radar
advisories?

think ADS/B

[Jackal24]

After hearing all these horror stories, I am so glad that FSS up here in
Alaska has not been privatized.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:31:53 -0400, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:30:58 -0700, Denny > wrote
>> in om>:
>>
>>>As far as me personally, ATC could vanish and it would affect me very
>>>little - and that 'little' could be worked around... I file IFR less
>>>and less... When I do not file IFR I do not need ATC...
>>>I can, do, and have, flown from one border of this country to the
>>>other without talking to ATC...
>>
>> Out here in the Los Angeles basin, the air traffic is so thick, that I
>> wouldn't consider not using Radar Advisory Service on VFR flights. But
>> if I had to pay for it, I might reconsider that decision.
>>
>> Privatized, user fee based, ATC must necessarily negatively impact air
>> safety, because it provides a disincentive (dollar price) against the
>> use of aviation services meant to enhance safety.
>>
>
>If, with a simple box upgrade, you could be sure that you knew where all the traffic was, would you still want the radar
>advisories?
>
>think ADS/B
>

Of course, ADS/B will only "see" transponder equipped aircraft, so it
is not able to provide positional information on ALL aircraft traffic.
Have you any idea of the cost to equip a typical GA aircraft with
ADS/B? Do you agree, that the expense may delay such installations
infinitely?

Doesn't it make more sense to have a few ground-based radar
installations for traffic separation rather than the hundreds of
thousands of ADS/B installations for it to work?

Unless ALL aircraft (including the military) are equipped with ADS/B,
there will be potentially conflicting air traffic that will not be
flagged, won't there?

What is a reasonable period of time to expect ALL aircraft to be ADS/B
equipped?

What is a reasonable period of time to expect FAA Traffic
Information Service–Broadcast (TIS–B) installations to provide
coverage of the entire NAS?

Is ADS/B infallible; is it able to provide absolute confirmation of
the location of conflicting traffic, or does it rely upon the validity
of the information provided by all ADS/B equipped flights?

In the case of low-level flights in sparsely populated areas (such as
military aircraft on MTR routs), how well will ADS/B function for air
traffic deconfliction given its line-of-sight communications
limitations and the military's workaround approach to ADS/B equipping
for military aircraft?*

What sort of backup system will be available for deconflicting air
traffic in the event of a GPS outage as may occur at the next, and
succeeding, periodic eleven-year solar maxima** due to possible CME
events?

As you can see, I am thinking about, not only ADS/B, but
satellite-based NextGen ATC too, and I'm wondering what sort of backup
plan the FAA has to separate aircraft when GPS and radio
communications become unreliable?



*
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_04/borrelli_adsb/borrelli_adsb.pdf



**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum
Historic maximums
The last solar maximum was in 2001, and on March 10, 2006 NASA
researchers announced that the next cycle would be the strongest
since the historic maximum in 1958 in which northern lights could
be seen as far south as Mexico. [1] This projection was based on
research done by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR).





http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm?list862664
Solar Storm Warning

03.10.2006

+ Play Audio | + Download Audio | + Historia en Español | + Email
to a friend | + Join mailing list

March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots
have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is
utterly quiet.

Like the quiet before a storm.

This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most
intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a
team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50%
stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years
ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the
historic Solar Max of 1958.

That was a solar maximum. The Space Age was just beginning:
Sputnik was launched in Oct. 1957 and Explorer 1 (the first US
satellite) in Jan. 1958. In 1958 you couldn't tell that a solar
storm was underway by looking at the bars on your cell phone; cell
phones didn't exist. Even so, people knew something big was
happening when Northern Lights were sighted three times in Mexico.
A similar maximum now would be noticed by its effect on cell
phones, GPS, weather satellites and many other modern
technologies.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 19, 12:25 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:16:55 -0700, Luke Skywalker
> > wrote in
> . com>:
>
>
>
> >There are two questions about the FSS "modernization" which are in
> >play.
>
> >The first is a tactical one, can Lockmart provide the service that
> >pilots need to fly safely? My guess is that eventually things improve
> >and get better.
>
> Given the structure LockMart has imposed on privatized FSS, it is
> unlikely that briefers with local metrological knowledge will ever be
> available again as they were pre-privatization. That is not an
> improvement in service nor will it get better.
>
> >The more pressing one, the one that AOPA and others seemed to
> >completly fall down on, is what is the role of aviation in The
> >Republic and what is the role of the government in aviation. I
> >realize that to some degree this is politics and I"ll try and stay out
> >of that.
>
> https://www.reason.org/atcreform09.shtml
> Air Traffic Control Reform Newsletter
>
> Issue No. 9
> December 2002
>
> By Robert Poole
>
> Controllers, FAA Mistaken on Privatization
>
> Holiday travelers can expect to be greeted at many airports by
> off-duty air traffic controllers protesting an alleged Bush
> Administration plan to "farm out to the lowest bidder" their
> vitally important jobs. In response, the Federal Aviation
> Administration has managed to muddy the waters, rather than
> defending the validity of what the Bush folks are actually doing.
>
> First, let's clarify the specific change in federal policy which
> the President announced last June. He signed a one-sentence
> executive order re-affirming that air traffic control (ATC) is not
> "inherently governmental." That order overturned a last-minute
> executive order issued by President Clinton, which slipped the
> "inherently governmental" language into a broader directive on
> reforming ATC. Most aviation experts agree that ATC is a high-tech
> service business, which can be provided either by government or by
> commercial entities-always operating under stringent governmental
> safety regulation. It's the safety regulation that most would
> agree is inherently governmental. ...
>
> If ATC isn't inherently governmental, why did the government shut it
> down immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks?
>
> >But privatization of the FSS system sends a clear message that
> >nurturing aviation a[n]d maintaining its viability at all levels is no
> >longer a function of the government of The Republic...It is that
> >simple.
>
> Sort of like letting the Arabs run the US ports, right?
>
> >I think we will all come to regret that as events move forward,
> >particularly as the next step unless there is a change in thinking in
> >DC is that the ATC system is next.
>
> You think? :-(
>
> >If you like how the space shuttle system is operated...you will love
> >Lock Mart running the FSS.
>
> >Robert
>
> You forgot to mention dismantling the world's safest ATC system and
> replacing it with a vulnerable satellite-based system, user fees, and
> handing the National Airspace System over to the corporate airline
> industry. Perhaps the Bush administration can award a non-competitive
> ATC contract to the Arabs instead. :-(

Hello

you will not finding me defending "privatization" of government
essential functions (and ATC/FSS is one) nor this administrations rush
to hand over tax payer dollars to its corporate friends...nor will I
stand in support of the dismantaling rather then the transition of the
worlds safest ATC system.

The nation is in a period of nuttiness and has been since September
2001...I am hoping for a regroup.

Robert

[Denny]

>
> The nation is in a period of nuttiness and has been since September
> 2001...I am hoping for a regroup.
>
> Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
Unfortunately, the other party is only defined by their distaste for
wasting money on military adventures, where it should be being wasted
on wealth transfer schemes, in their eyes...
The actual differences between the two parties are so small as to be
nearly invisible - only through a partisan microscope can any
difference be discerned...
Both parties are manned by professional politicians, who's only
mission is to get reelected until the day they retire - or die if you
are a Kennedy...
It appears we have gotten the government we deserve <sigh>

denny

[Kevin Clarke]

Someone asked about if the Bridgeport FSS would follow up. Well they
did. I got a call from the Ops Mgr again this morning. I was never
really looking for resolution so much as I wanted them to be aware of
what happened. But what I was told was that the briefer was way out of
line telling me to depart VFR and to contact Boston Approach on that
frequency (it was 118.25, not the right frequency for my sector).

Net net, they are going to pass around their handbook of "how to be a
briefer" and get some recurrent training. A good thing (tm) we should
all do IMHO.

KC

Kevin Clarke wrote:
> I'll try to make this long story brief.
>
> On 7/29 I filed via DUATS an IFR departure from KFIT to KBHB via ENE.
> This was at 1200Z. My proposed time off was 1500z. My morning went
> quicker so when I got to the airport I called BDR FSS on the RCO
> 118.025 and amended my time off for 1300Z and filed for an alternate
> KBGR.
>
> They had no record of my flight plan and called into Boston to get the
> info, which I thought was strange. After my runup I called BDR for my
> clearance and the controller said, you want to leave now? I wanted the
> clearance before I went wheels up because there was SCT at 020. I
> didn't want to play dodge-ums, while copying the clearance and
> programming the GNS. He said he couldn't get a clearance and would I
> depart VFR and pickup my clearance with BOS APPCH on 118.125 (or some
> such freq). he commented that that was a good frequency to use. Which
> I thought was strange terminology. Normally in this area out of
> Fitchburg we dial up BOS on 124.4. But wanting to get underway I
> departed VFR, dialed up BOS for the clearance. They seemed surprised I
> was airborne and had to scramble to get me the clearance. I got
> vectored south-east (hdg 160) which is unusual for a departure out of
> KFIT but eventually got my clearance and was turned on course direct ENE.
>
> All along the route as I got transferred from controller to controller
> they kept asking "where are you going?". So something was lost and not
> in the system. If you check out flightaware.com (N15892) I apparently
> diverted to Portland on this flight. Which I did not, it was 5000'
> below me. :-) The whole thing was very strange.
>
> The flight was uneventful (I shot a much better ILS through actual
> this time into KBHB). I called up the comment line that was posted in
> this newsgroup recently and reported my experience, plus some other
> FSS weirdness that I experienced the next day trying to get a standard
> briefing. Did you guys realize they can't give you a briefing for a
> local flight? You have to go somewhere. BHB-BHB doesn't count as a
> flight. At least that was what I was told. But I digress.
>
> Anyway, yesterday the Ops Mgr from BDR called me as a followup and
> went thru all this with me. He was very helpful and wanted to get
> things right, which I thought was great. He commented that asking me
> to depart VFR was a big no-no and that the frequency they gave me for
> BOS was also wrong. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear the resolution but
> wanted to share that the system of follow thru anyway is working and
> some of the folks there are trying to make this FSS debacle right.
>
> KC

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I've already noticed that the new briefers are treating me like the
> CUSTOMER, not an annoyance, as some of the gummint FSS guys would
> occasionally do. It's a matter of attitude and tone which makes calling
> them much more pleasant.

You've mentioned this before. As I think I've also written, I experienced
nothing like this from the FSS staffers with whom I dealt prior to the
corporate takeover.

>
> They also clearly have access to superior computer equipment, and are
> being encouraged to use every tool at their disposal to help us,
> including websites like ADDs. This was NOT the case with the old FSS
> guys, whom I often found were using less-capable weather forecasting
> tools than I was.

That may be true (though I remember seeing modern Internet-based tools in
use when I visited Millville FSS, once upon a time). But it's not like
this would have been difficult/expensive to achieve w/o the takeover.

If we do assume that you're correct that this was somehow unavailable
before the takeover, then this was likely an artificial condition held
precisely for the purpose of making the takeover look better.


> Finally, the fact that many of the new guys are real pilots sure gives
> me a sense of confidence that I'm talking to someone who actually walks
> the walk. I rarely had the impression with old FSS.

Perhaps. But I'd prefer an aviation-ignorant weather expert to the
reverse. Admittedly, though, I'd prefer dual experts. Again, though, I'm
not sure why hiring aviators had to wait for the takeover. Perhaps
because it was ditching the weather experts that made room for the
aviators?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:15:13 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Doesn't it make more sense to have a few ground-based radar installations
> for traffic separation rather than the hundreds of thousands of ADS/B
> installations for it to work?

How would a few ground-based installations cover the entire nation? Or
are you speaking only of the LA area?

One advantage of ADS-B is that properly equiped aircraft can "see" each
other even outside of RADAR coverage. Being in RADAR coverage provides
additional "service" (more information is spread more widely), but the
system doesn't *require* that coverage to function.

However, outside of RADAR coverage full (and mutually compatible!) ADS-B
ubiquity is necessary. And since, at least last time I checked, ADS-B has
at least two (three?) mutually incompatible transceivers, even achieving
100% installation wouldn't be enough.

My opinion is that this is a good idea but (1) it'll take some time for
the full utility to be achieved and (2) it'll be completely screwed if the
compatibility issue is left unresolved.

As far as the GPS requirement, this is a separate issue. "Modern"
navigation devices should exploit a combination of space and ground based
systems. Why we have "GPS units" rather than more diverse "Navigation
units" is probably just a matter of cost. But, obviously, there's yet to
be much in the way of a call for these superior "Navigation units".

Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Perhaps it isn't cost, but the expectation
that ground based navaids are really going to be shut down. That would be
bad.

- Andrew

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 22, 6:39 am, Denny > wrote:
> > The nation is in a period of nuttiness and has been since September
> > 2001...I am hoping for a regroup.
>
> > Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
> Unfortunately, the other party is only defined by their distaste for
> wasting money on military adventures, where it should be being wasted
> on wealth transfer schemes, in their eyes...
> The actual differences between the two parties are so small as to be
> nearly invisible - only through a partisan microscope can any
> difference be discerned...
> Both parties are manned by professional politicians, who's only
> mission is to get reelected until the day they retire - or die if you
> are a Kennedy...
> It appears we have gotten the government we deserve <sigh>
>
> denny

I think we have the government and national situation we deserve...I
just wish we could do better.

The FSS situation (and eventually the privatization of ATC) is to my
mind an argument upon which two foundations tilt...the first is 1)
what is the proper role of government and 2) what are wealth
transfers....

Taxes are in my view a wealth transfer from individuals to the
collective government to do things for our collective society...I hate
the word collective because before long we get to the socialism
argument...

BUT FLYING IS A WEALTH TRANSFER...the American people transfer wealth
to the federal government to run a good ATC system, to make sure the
planes are safe, the navaids work...pilots are correctly certified and
trained...

It is the price we all pay for a functioning society. More then once
I have had people tell me "I dont fly so why do I care that the system
works" ....because our economy and our culture in general depend on
it. It is just like public schools or any of the other myriad of
things that the government does.

To different groups each function it does is either something of
enormous value (try the space shuttle system on NASA Rd 1...aka Nasa
Parkway) or it is a boondoggle...breakfast for kids in public schools.

I am one who believes and likes the US as a superpower and that means
we have agovernment that can make a superpower work.

Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:33:04 -0400, Andrew Gideon
> wrote in
>:

>On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:15:13 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Doesn't it make more sense to have a few ground-based radar installations
>> for traffic separation rather than the hundreds of thousands of ADS/B
>> installations for it to work?
>
>How would a few ground-based installations cover the entire nation? Or
>are you speaking only of the LA area?

I'm speaking of the current system. It pretty much covers the CONUS
down to the line-of-sight floor. I doubt there are hundreds of
thousands of FAA radar installations.

>One advantage of ADS-B is that properly equiped aircraft can "see" each
>other even outside of RADAR coverage. Being in RADAR coverage provides
>additional "service" (more information is spread more widely), but the
>system doesn't *require* that coverage to function.

That certainly is a significant advantage if it doesn't lull the crew
into relying on ADS/B exclusively for separation.

How much does it cost to properly equip the GA and military fleets
with ADS/B?

Incidentally, the military doesn't intend to install ADS/B in their
aircraft, so ADS/B equipped GA flights will still not be able to "see"
the fast-movers on MTRs, nor any NORDO flights.

>However, outside of RADAR coverage full (and mutually compatible!) ADS-B
>ubiquity is necessary. And since, at least last time I checked, ADS-B has
>at least two (three?) mutually incompatible transceivers, even achieving
>100% installation wouldn't be enough.

OMG, you've got to be kidding. Three incompatible ADS/B systems?
Surely that's destined to change, right?

>My opinion is that this is a good idea but (1) it'll take some time for
>the full utility to be achieved

Given the fact that the military does not intend to equip its fleet
with ADS/B, full utility will *never* be achieved.

>and (2) it'll be completely screwed if the compatibility issue is left unresolved.

Or in the event of GPS unavailability due to jamming, solar activity,
or intentional shutdown as may occur in the event of perceived or real
threats to the nation.

>As far as the GPS requirement, this is a separate issue. "Modern"
>navigation devices should exploit a combination of space and ground based
>systems.

Exactly.

>Why we have "GPS units" rather than more diverse "Navigation
>units" is probably just a matter of cost. But, obviously, there's yet to
>be much in the way of a call for these superior "Navigation units".

The issue of price, and the recurring cost of periodic database
updates will substantially delay the ubiquity of such systems.

>Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Perhaps it isn't cost, but the expectation
>that ground based navaids are really going to be shut down. That would be
>bad.
>

I agree. Decommissioning the existing navaids would be less than
prudent.

Of course, we're looking at the issue from a personal-GA point of view
not an airline POV.