AFSS response time

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:30:15 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

LOCKHEED MARTIN: AFSS PERFORMANCE IS IMPROVING
(

Given how lousy it was when the turnover occurred, no one should
get an "atta-boy" for improvements. (-{

Agreed. Given LockMart's admission of the cause of their poor
performance being untested software and inadequate personnel training,
they must not have felt Flight Service was worthy of a professional
transition.

rant
The current regime's dogged determination to privatize virtually all
of federal government appears to be an attempt to remove government
regulation and accountability from the people, so that large
corporations can pillage the federal coffers. This privatization of
FSS is only the prelude to complete ATC privatization, IMO.

To see how effective privatization is in achieving those goals, one
only needs to look at Bush's illogical war in Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
http://iraqforsale.org/ . Prisoner interrogation is out-sourced;
private contractors are not signatory to the Geneva Convention.
Blackwater security guards are exempt from local and federal laws
while operating in Iraq. Halliburton charges US tax payers $99.00 per
load to wash solders laundry, and solders are ordered not to do their
own. This article http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30834 is
two years old; there are over 50,000 Peruvian mercenaries now in Iraq.
If this war wasn't about corporate greed, Bush could have poured the
2-1/2 billion dollars a week it's costing us into jobs for the Iraqi
youth, or purchased all the weapons from the insurgents with plenty of
money to spare. When will the American people wake up to what the
Bush regime is doing in their name?

Ask the former Enron employees how responsible large corporations are
in meeting their retirement obligations. That's the sort of
accountability you can expect from privatization.
/rant

"YougotitSam" wrote in message
...

Is this how the FAA is trying to kill the FSS system? They have made no
bones about wanting to reduce the coast of the FSS system.


The FAA budget is tight. The FAA needs more money for social programs
rather than silly air traffic control and safety stuff. Who cares about
pilots and air safety anyway?


FSS is costly and unnecessary. Killing it is a very good idea.

It may be expensive ($15 per pilot contact) but it is still seems necessary
for me personally.

My destinations in the airplane are to out of the way places (including 2P2
just north of you Steve).

I am getting all my WX information over a rotary dial phone, and in some
cases using a void time clearance to depart.
I don't have any form of weather downlink (yet) so I am relying on regular
radio contacts with an AFSS station to
derive a weather picture while aloft. With a tattered laminated copy of the
reporting stations, and a patient briefer
I can derive a very good picture of the current and forecast conditions.

Even when I am not flying in the stone age, in Door County, or rural
Indiana; I used to appreciate talking to a weather specialist to confirm my
appraisal of forecast already derived via DUATS. In the old days, you
could even ask to speak
with the staff meterologist. Now it may have been a hoot to have Todd
Spam-Can challenge the current models based
on his trusty E6B and the winds aloft; but I am convinced the exchanges
augmented my personal safety when operating on the practical limits.

With weather (or perhaps the incapacity to deal with it) being a frequent
component in fatal aviation accidents;
I don't understand the logic in effectively retiring one of our weather
tools.

Todd


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

"YougotitSam" wrote in message
...

Is this how the FAA is trying to kill the FSS system? They have made no
bones about wanting to reduce the coast of the FSS system.


The FAA budget is tight. The FAA needs more money for social programs
rather than silly air traffic control and safety stuff. Who cares about
pilots and air safety anyway?


FSS is costly and unnecessary. Killing it is a very good idea.

"Todd W. Deckard" wrote in message
...

It may be expensive ($15 per pilot contact) but it is still seems
necessary for me personally.


Are you willing to pay the full cost of a telephone weather briefing?



My destinations in the airplane are to out of the way places (including
2P2 just north of you Steve).

I am getting all my WX information over a rotary dial phone, and in some
cases using a void time clearance to depart.
I don't have any form of weather downlink (yet) so I am relying on regular
radio contacts with an AFSS station to
derive a weather picture while aloft. With a tattered laminated copy of
the reporting stations, and a patient briefer
I can derive a very good picture of the current and forecast conditions.


I get current conditions by listening to the various ASOS/AWOS/ATIS
broadcasts from sites ahead of me.



Even when I am not flying in the stone age, in Door County, or rural
Indiana; I used to appreciate talking to a weather specialist to confirm
my appraisal of forecast already derived via DUATS. In the old days,
you could even ask to speak
with the staff meterologist. Now it may have been a hoot to have Todd
Spam-Can challenge the current models based
on his trusty E6B and the winds aloft; but I am convinced the exchanges
augmented my personal safety when operating on the practical limits.

With weather (or perhaps the incapacity to deal with it) being a frequent
component in fatal aviation accidents;
I don't understand the logic in effectively retiring one of our weather
tools.


If there's sufficient demand for service as you like it someone will likely
offer it. I object to being taxed to pay for services I don't use.

No, I wouldn't pay for a live briefing (and shame on me); or if I did it
would only be a single snapshot
at the time of departure. I am not alone in that pay per drink aviation
services would be a disincentive to
safety.

Its an interesting debate. In general, I am in favor of user-fee taxation.
I would prefer the users pay for the
system and the funds are sequestered to that activity. I would add the
caveat that some activities (or some
percentage of many activities) are supplied thru the general fund in
proportion to the rough national need.

The current FAA funding satisifies this for me; the bulk is a fuel surcharge
and percentage is paid for out
of general taxes. This is appropriate because a country needs a highway
system even if I don't use it. Our daughter goes to Catholic school but I
don't begrudge my property taxes becuase a national school system is
necessary.

I will confess though, in the FAA/AFSS debate I seem be to dead set against
direct use based taxation. I believe
its a disincentive to safety and also that I probably enjoy richer service
without it. I also don't see how my general tax
burden is going to go down if there is a privatization shift, this is a bait
and switch way to raise revenues. I also believe that strong small aviation
in the US is a component to our safe national airspace system. It forms the
"farm leagues" for the airlines and becuase the average competency of the
fellow in the Aeronca Champ is so high, the whole system taps a very capable
pilot base.

This is not the case in many other countries where you sit in the back and
worry about who is sitting in the front.

To return to the AFSS debate, it amazes me that we felt we would derive some
commercial efficiency by
bidding this to a large military contractor with no experience developing a
call center and no transaction profit incentive. Not to minimize the AFSS
infrastructure but it is a very easy process to analyze and scale for.
This was really screwed up at the most basic levels. If we are going to
shut it down, shut it down -- but the current system is going to do more
harm than good and I feel in my bones there will be an increase in small
aircraft accidents tracable to the shoddy quality.

Good debate,
I guess I agree with you -- but don't want to pay?

Todd



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

If there's sufficient demand for service as you like it someone will
likely offer it. I object to being taxed to pay for services I don't use.

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 06:24:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

I get current conditions by listening to the various ASOS/AWOS/ATIS
broadcasts from sites ahead of me.

Are you saying you telephone those facilities before departure, so
that you can reach a decision to launch or not?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Are you saying you telephone those facilities before departure, so
that you can reach a decision to launch or not?


No, I use DUAT before launch.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I object to being taxed to pay for services I don't use.

I think a more common objection these days is being taxed for services that
suck.

If the FAA were to make the AFSS system disappear, do you think you would
pay less tax? More likely is that you would be then taxed for services that
didn't exist. I can't imagine you'd like that better.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200710/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7971843dbb784@uwe...

If the FAA were to make the AFSS system disappear, do you think you would
pay less tax?


I think if the AFSS system disappeared the federal budget would be less than
it would be if the AFSS system is retained.

"Todd W. Deckard" wrote in message ...
It may be expensive ($15 per pilot contact) but it is still seems
necessary for me personally.

I thought the number was closer to $20 per phone contact. Since Student
Pilots are heavily encouraged by their CFIs to call FSS before every launch,
I suspect the call count would drop severely with any $/call program. So I
think we got the best compromise.