NATCA Going Down in Flames

I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
certainly one I've never seen proposed.

Isn't that what NFCTs are?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:15:34 GMT, john smith wrote:

In article ,
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

We had one programmer who was always neatly dressed. I had to rewrite
a lot of his code as it was difficult to read and he didn't know what
internal documentation meant. Neat dresser, sloppy programmer albeit
the stuff worked.

Wait a minute... you re-wrote his code and you are giving him credit for
it working?

That is because they did work.

He wrote working programs. They did what they were supposed to do. I
reorganized them into logical order using what is called "pretty
printing" which makes the source code easy to read for those who come
along behind. I then added internal documentation.

Both of the above are things unknown to management. They only care if
the code works for the original job.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:25:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
roups.com...

Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC
are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in
stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding
structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way.

What do you think of this as a possibility?


I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.


I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
cost a lot more than the current funding provides.

Of course, the need for state-of-the-art technology is based upon
projections from past growth rates. If that growth should fail to
materialize, there won't be an adequate number of users over which to
amortize the costs. In that case, the government and the users both
will be filling Boeing's or LocMart's bank accounts.

Jay Honeck wrote:
************************************************** *****************
Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
union is going on the offensive!

I thought it was strange as well Jay, that a profession that considers
itself a very "professional" occupation (and is paid commensurately
with other professionals) dressed so shabbily. I know when I took a
tour of the STL TRACON I was surprised at how unprofessional some of
the controllers looked. It certainly didn't look like I was visiting a
place of business.

It was strange too, in that I was touring as part of an OPERATION
RAINCHECK event. Which for those who may not know is sort of an open
house for ATC.

Speaking of Operation Raincheck. At Oshkosh I asked at the NATCA tent
why we don't see more of these types of events. The answer came back
as with everything else in the aviation world, "funding". Then later
when I got home, I got to thinking about it, why is funding an issue?
On the event I went to, there were around 5 or 6 controllers there for
questions, and leading whatever discussion topic was being discussed.
There was some refreshments, but nothing of any real cost (probably
less than $1 a head),the building and equipment is already running,
obviously, so its not like they had to turn the lights on for the day
for us. Then I realized where the costs were. It was because the
controllers were getting PAID to be there with us (anybody that knows
different please correct my conclusion!)

I don't know why they would require that. I would think you would be
able to get enough volunteers to put such an event on at least once a
quarter, or probably once a month. Especially considering that by
having the dialouge with us the consumer, they could "educate" us
further in how things would be best run in our area.

For example, I was able to learn by talking with them (at least with
the approach controllers I talked to), that they HATE the "full" callup
for practice approaches, and prefer a "VFR request" followed by
position, etc.

I can't imagine this wasn't worth some amount of time on their part. I
know if I got a chance to educate my customers about things that they
could do that would improve my working experience, I would be happy to
volunteer that time.

I'm sure its a union rule that they can't volunteer their time like
that.

The dress code issue isn't about dress code. It's about a power
struggle between the union and the FAA. Each side wants to demonstrate
the power they have.

As the consumer, I'd like to be able to assume that the person on the
other end of the radio presents themselves professionally.

As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
facility.....

The dress code issue isn't about dress code. It's about a power
struggle between the union and the FAA. Each side wants to demonstrate
the power they have.

Bingo. And I think that is the reason "little things" get so much air.

As the consumer, I'd like to be able to assume that the person on the
other end of the radio presents themselves professionally.

Why? The only thing they have to present is on the radio. It makes as
much sense as requring an auto mechanic to have a "dulcent telephone voice".

As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
facility.....

This improves safety how? Oh yeah, what I said up top.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Is such a split even being considered as a possibility?


I doubt it, but that is the way it was prior to 1942.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
certainly one I've never seen proposed.

So, Steven, is this something that has been seriously discussed? Or is
this an entirely new idea that you just spawned?


It's not being discussed to my knowledge but it's not a new idea. It's the
way things were prior to Pearl Harbor.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
cost a lot more than the current funding provides.


I see no reason to believe that privatization will improve on that.

On 12 Sep 2006 11:50:26 -0700, "bdl" wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
************************************************* ******************
Unbelievable! They're actually going to fight against their employer
for dictating what they must wear to work... Apparently their right to
look like bums in a professional setting has been violated, and the
union is going on the offensive!

I thought it was strange as well Jay, that a profession that considers
itself a very "professional" occupation (and is paid commensurately
with other professionals) dressed so shabbily. I know when I took a
tour of the STL TRACON I was surprised at how unprofessional some of
the controllers looked. It certainly didn't look like I was visiting a
place of business.

I'm not sniping at you, Brian, but your post gives me a junp-off point
for a rant:

Speaking as someone who was required to wear a jacket and tie from the
thrid grade through gradschool (well, except for 2 years in
highschool), I have to say I found it refreshing when the boomers
right behind me trashed a tradition that was clearly designed to
perpetuate stereotypes of "professionals" and "tradesmen."

They/we were, of course, almost immediately co-opted by the makers of
"designer" dungarees and so forth, but it was nice while tie-dying and
such was still a cottage industry.

At this point, it's all been taken over by big business -- to the
point where it's all part of a continuum, with even the most vulgarly
offensive crap being fronted in mass quantities in malls coast to
coast by outfits like Spencer Gifts.

So it's now just a different manifestation of what my father called
"regimented robots" when the nuns first proposed jackets and ties in
1952. But make no mistake -- outside the military, clothing has no
relationship to professionalism.

As an aside, it may have been in the same article, but I read recently
that the other rule the FAA put in place that has the union up in arms
is "no naps" while on breaks... Oh, and they have to stay at the
facility.....

Demonstrating precisely how "professional" they consider their workers
to be.

Don

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:38:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I agree, that ATC is inherently a governmental function, but judging
from the FAA's past sluggish performance in implementing ATC upgrades,
it's going to take privatization to achieve state-of-the-art
technology required for the NAS of the 21st century. And
state-of-the-art technology (required by the airlines) is going to
cost a lot more than the current funding provides.


I see no reason to believe that privatization will improve on that.


On what, swift modernization, or the increased cost of the future of
ATC?