"running with scissors" wrote in
message om...
Dave Buckles wrote in message
news:q9kgc.8424$55.1372@lakeread02...
running with scissors wrote:
from NATAC website:

Hrm...I wonder if *they* have an axe to grind.

The FAA's Contract Tower Program takes air safety and sells it to the
lowest bidder. It is about reducing staff and cutting all possible
corners in the name of saving a buck or two. This unsafe and highly
controversial privatization program now sits at the epicenter of a
fierce debate on Capitol Hill. The White House wants to turn over air
traffic control towers to the Contract Tower Program, which consists
of three private companies in charge of what should always be an
inherently governmental function.

All I know is that, of my flights to towered fields, fully 95% of them
are to contract towers (Norman Westheimer, KOUN, and Wiley Post, KPWA).
I have found them to be *without exception* professional, helpful, and
good at what they do. Matter of fact, once a year or so I take my grill
up to Westheimer and cook steaks or something for the tower crew to
thank them for the great job they do. Ever seen seven or eight aircraft
in the closed patter, with another two on instrument approaches, and one
or two more trying to take off, with only intersecting runways? They do
a damned fine job.

Now, if I were going to grumble about controllers, it would be Oklahoma
City Approach. But we'll not go there. Short answer, there's nothing
wrong with contract towers. It's absolutely *not* unsafe (Norman has
only had two accidents in the past umpteen years during controlled
hours, and neither were due to tower error--one was an engine failure,
the other a student's failure to control the aircraft on his first
solo), and no corners are being cut there; in fact, they're *adding*
features: upgrading the radio systems and recorders, going from
non-radar to TARDIS to a full radar system, and so forth.

Why should it *always* be inherently governmental? I grow weary of such
claims without supporting data.

The issues go beyond safety records and demeanor. See below.

--Dave Buckles

dave, thanks for the input. i was hoping a thread may start on the
issue of ATC privatization and contract towers as, to be honest, it
*IS* going to be an affecting issue for all of us with aircraft in
operation and a formative discussion on view and opinions may be a
welcome change from the usual bull**t, clag and conspiracy theories.

whereas, i cannot disagree with you on the abilities and excellence of
controllers i have had interchanges with, that is really not the
issue. one of the issues that interests me is the advantages and
disadvantages of such. review of the European system, Canadian and
australian system will give an indication as to potential resultant
factors for aircraft operators.

In the past week or two I read a very detailed story in one of the trade
pubs on the issue and how it has played out in UK, Canada and Australia.
I'll provide a cite if I can find it.

First, some cautions on assessing safety.

1. Risks at small or even medium airports are not the same as at large,
busy airports. The operational models for scaling up what works at small
towers may or may not fit business models of what is economically feasible
at large locations, and all privatization models involve keeping costs at or
below revenues.

2. While there is no obvious evidence that privatizing ATC in those three
countries has reduced safety, anyone familiar with aviation safety knows
that increasing the risk factors today doesn't necessarily produce accidents
tomorrow. It make take many years for corner-cutting to manifest itself.

3. Any risk assessment made today can only be based on current conditions,
i.e., adequacy of equipment, manning and training, funding to provide same,
plus traffic levels. These will change over time, and not always for the
better.

As to the economics, we've already seen how poorly that has worked. Yes,
it's largely the result of the unforeseen drop in traffic (fees), but hey,
this is the real world. Stuff happens. Responsible governments will step
in with some mechanism or other to prevent massive breakdowns, but
meanwhile, quality will suffer (and safety margins), and when the government
has to bail out an essential service that can't be provided economically by
the private sector, that's a strong (though not dispositive) argument that
it may be inherently governmental.

The interplay of funding and economics clouds and confounds the argument
over what is inherently governmental. Ironically, the contract tower
program demonstrably increases safety because, for funding reasons, the FAA
otherwise would have closed them. FAA had that option; but under a
privatized system, if the same thing happens - not enough money to keep the
small facilities running - who ya gonna call?

(There is a possible partial answer to that question. Ironically, it would
involve a complete reversal of the current model, and the precedent goes
back to 1978. Anyone care to guess?)