Time to take action!
Posted by Paul Cox on January 30th, 2009
So this week, here at the Follies we’ve detailed how the FAA has stood by and blithely let Lockheed Martin screw the taxpayer, the flying public, and their employees over. It’s time we stand up and do what we can do to fight against this action.
Here’s the FAA’s Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures, also known as the Aeronautical Information Manual (or AIM).
The AIM conveniently lays out in Chapter 4 who’s responsible for what in the ATC system:
4-1-1. Air Route Traffic Control Centers
Centers are established primarily to provide air traffic service to aircraft operating on IFR flight plans within controlled airspace, and principally during the en?route phase of flight.
4-1-2. Control Towers
Towers have been established to provide for a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic on and in the vicinity of an airport. When the responsibility has been so delegated, towers also provide for the separation of IFR aircraft in the terminal areas.
REFERENCE-
AIM, Approach Control, Paragraph 5-4-3.4-1-3. Flight Service Stations
a. Flight Service Stations (FSSs) are air traffic facilities which provide pilot briefings, en route communications and VFR search and rescue services, assist lost aircraft and aircraft in emergency situations, relay ATC clearances, originate Notices to Airmen, broadcast aviation weather and National Airspace System (NAS) information, receive and process IFR flight plans, and monitor navigational aids (NAVAIDs). In addition, at selected locations FSSs provide En Route Flight Advisory Service (Flight Watch), take weather observations, issue airport advisories, and advise Customs and Immigration of transborder flights.
(The emphasis in 4-1-3a was added.)
There’s some more stuff in Chapter 5:
5-1-1. Preflight Preparation
a. Every pilot is urged to receive a preflight briefing and to file a flight plan. This briefing should consist of the latest or most current weather, airport, and en route NAVAID information. Briefing service may be obtained from an FSS either by telephone or interphone, by radio when airborne, or by a personal visit to the station. Pilots with a current medical certificate in the 48 contiguous States may access toll-free the Direct User Access Terminal System (DUATS) through a personal computer. DUATS will provide alpha-numeric preflight weather data and allow pilots to file domestic VFR or IFR flight plans.
Note that one type of ATC facility is mentioned here- it’s Flight Service Stations. Not towers, not ARTCCs, but FSS. That, or DUATS, is where pilots are supposed to get briefed and where they’re supposed to file a flight plan.
5-1-7. Composite Flight Plan (VFR/IFR Flights)
a. Flight plans which specify VFR operation for one portion of a flight, and IFR for another portion, will be accepted by the FSS at the point of departure. If VFR flight is conducted for the first portion of the flight, pilots should report their departure time to the FSS with whom the VFR/IFR flight plan was filed; and, subsequently, close the VFR portion and request ATC clearance from the FSS nearest the point at which change from VFR to IFR is proposed.
Again, note where pilots are supposed to be talking when they want to deal with flight plan issues and get their ATC clearance- it’s FSS.
(See where I’m going with this?)
5-1-8. Flight Plan- IFR Flights
a. General
1. Prior to departure from within, or prior to entering controlled airspace, a pilot must submit a complete flight plan and receive an air traffic clearance, if weather conditions are below VFR minimums. Instrument flight plans may be submitted to the nearest FSS or ATCT either in person or by telephone (or by radio if no other means are available). Pilots should file IFR flight plans at least 30 minutes prior to estimated time of departure to preclude possible delay in receiving a departure clearance from ATC. In order to provide FAA traffic management units strategic route planning capabilities, nonscheduled operators conducting IFR operations above FL 230 are requested to voluntarily file IFR flight plans at least 4 hours prior to estimated time of departure (ETD). To minimize your delay in entering Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E surface areas at destination when IFR weather conditions exist or are forecast at that airport, an IFR flight plan should be filed before departure. Otherwise, a 30 minute delay is not unusual in receiving an ATC clearance because of time spent in processing flight plan data. Traffic saturation frequently prevents control personnel from accepting flight plans by radio. In such cases, the pilot is advised to contact the nearest FSS for the purpose of filing the flight plan.
NOTE-
There are several methods of obtaining IFR clearances at nontower, non-FSS, and outlying airports. The procedure may vary due to geographical features, weather conditions, and the complexity of the ATC system. To determine the most effective means of receiving an IFR clearance, pilots should ask the nearest FSS the most appropriate means of obtaining the IFR clearance.
(The emphasis at the end of the first paragraph is added.)
Again, we see that ARTCCs are not mentioned at all; the AIM tells pilots they need to file their flight plans in person or by telephone with either FSS or an ATCT, and it says that the control towers will frequently be too busy to tie up the radios with flight plans. The FAA’s official guidance to pilots is that they should be contacting the nearest FSS.
The last tidbit of information I have for you, still from the AIM:
5-3-1. ARTCC Communications
a. Direct Communications, Controllers and Pilots.
1. ARTCCs are capable of direct communications with IFR air traffic on certain frequencies. Maximum communications coverage is possible through the use of Remote Center Air/Ground (RCAG) sites comprised of both VHF and UHF transmitters and receivers. These sites are located throughout the U.S. Although they may be several hundred miles away from the ARTCC, they are remoted to the various ARTCCs by land lines or microwave links. Since IFR operations are expedited through the use of direct communications, pilots are requested to use these frequencies strictly for communications pertinent to the control of IFR aircraft. Flight plan filing, en route weather, weather forecasts, and similar data should be requested through FSSs, company radio, or appropriate military facilities capable of performing these services.
(Again, the emphasis in the text of the paragraph is added.)
This is simple, folks. One of the big reasons that Lockheed has been able to get away with murder in terms of their performance under their contract is because we, collectively, the aviation system, have let them.
When they made the big transition over to FS21 and it was a nightmare of dropped flight plans, long hold times, unanswered radio calls and automation problems, the FAA’s air traffic controllers picked up the slack.
It wasn’t really the FSS staffers’ fault. They have been hung out to dry, continually, by the FAA and by Lockheed. This is what happens when a private, for-profit corporation gets into business; their first three motives are profit, profit, and profit. (You don’t see “taking care of the customer” or “enhance safety” anywhere in there.)
The controllers gave out the numbers to their control towers. Some centers even started accepting pilots calling directly to the sector (there’s a way to direct-dial straight to the sector controller on a telephone). They took flight plans, they issued clearances, they generally started doing a lot of the things that the FAA’s own orders say are supposed to be done by Flight Service Stations.
Again, I say to the controllers out there: This isn’t the FSS crew’s fault. The guy on the other end of the line can’t help it. He often doesn’t have enough training, doesn’t know the area he’s briefing for, and is hopelessly busy thanks to intentional understaffing of the facility.
(Sounds familiar to a lot of controllers here, I’m sure.)
So what do I suggest?
I suggest we bury them.
I know that doesn’t sound like it’ll help, but look at it this way: If we don’t, things will NOT change. Lockheed will continue to slash staffing (while we pick up more and more of their duties) and make more moolah in profits.
Instead, here’s what we (the controllers) should do: We should follow the FAA’s orders. Don’t take flight plans- refer them to FSS. Don’t accept direct-dial calls at the sector- tell them to call FSS and hang up. Don’t issue ride reports for non-significant weather- refer them to FSS. (As a reminder, check out the 7110.65, paragraph 2-6-3 for what the FAA declares to be “significant” PIREPS that are operationally pertinent.)
Yeah, this will make the current FSS staffers busy- much busier, in fact. Oh well- I don’t have a problem with that, and I doubt they will, either. They won’t be happy about it, but they’ll simply see it as an example of how Lockheed has slashed their staffing to the bone to increase profits.
More importantly, when the system grinds to a halt and the AOPA folks start complaining and things slow down, it will put a lot of pressure onto LM and the FAA to fix things- to hire and RETAIN the proper number of people, to rehire the guys that are ready to check out quickly, etc.
We need to put pressure on Congress, too. Pilots, you need to call or write or telegraph or email your Congressmen and Senators. You need to speak up. You need to demand better service. Keep notes of your stories- how long you had to wait on hold, how a briefer trying to cover multiple airspaces didn’t know your locality, etc.
We need to highlight the problems and point them out and keep putting pressure on the decision-makers to fix all this mess.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Paul:
I really appreciate learning about these issues. But not being familiar with the operations of aviation safety, I often get lost in what you and others write, and so don’t feel that I’m in a knowledgeable enough position to take action.
Would it be possible for you or others to create an elementary bullet point type list of the problems and an action plan based on that? Could you make it sticky somewhere on the front page of this blog?
That could be valuable in raising awareness in the flying public and in legislators at local, state and national levels.
On your sidebar, would you consider placing the Senate and House Committees and leadership contact info having to do with aviation safety?
Thanks for considering helping out the ignoramuses among your readership (that would be me). And of course, thanks for your work on aviation safety and workers protections.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:52 am
lso
January 30th, 2009 at 5:57 am
aw hell. I had a really good reply, and I hit a wrong button. Whatever, I suppose it does not matter. Annie, I will be in DC next week hitting up our congressmen/women. We will not quit, even when we get a ratified contract. It really is “safety first” to NATCA.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:31 am
NATCA listen up…
Lockheed TELLS us to give approach control phone numbers to pilots to get clearances now. They are telling us to do this. Our site does not even have direct lines to the ATC facilities I work under anymore, as my area of responsibility expanded about ten fold. And who do you think a pilot is going to pass a Pilot Report to, the EFAS or Inflight specialist at Lockheed (who never answers the freqs… No wonder, FAA hardly monitors that), or the sector controller that is on watch and pretty much GUARANTEED to be listening? Speak up about crappy notams too. File UCRs if you see a pilot can’t get ahold of Flight Service, or if you see a bad notam. UCRs can go a long way too.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:00 am
The Reason Public Policy Institute used to have a paper published on their website on “how to privatize government emloyees”. It included methods to downsize and eliminate jobs in the least psychologically painful way for government workers, people who were used to feeling secure in their employment. I tried to find it again to show our local folks but I think RPPI took it down from the website.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:11 am
http://www.reason.org/ps278.pdf
Have you read this one yet? Notice it was published less than one month after bUSH was in office.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Maybe they took it down when they saw this privatization has been such a rowsing success!!! Controllers need to file any kind of paper when a pilot reports he can’t get a hold of Flight Service like a previous reply says. It’s instinct to make the system work no matter what the propblems, you need to go against instinct!
January 30th, 2009 at 9:08 am
BEB,
Nothing in the AIM (which is not regulatory in nature) prevents you from taking a flight plan while working a position at ZSE. In fact, the 7110.65 (which is directive in nature) states in 2-2-1b:
EN ROUTE. When flight plans are filed directly
with the center, record all items given by the pilot
either on a flight progress strip/flight data entry or on
a voice recorder. If the latter, enter in box 26 of the
initial flight progress strip the sector or position
number to identify where the information may be
found in the event search and rescue (SAR) activities
become necessary.
Concerning PIREPS:
2-6-3c: Obtain PIREPs directly from the pilot, or if the
PIREP has been requested by another facility, you
may instruct the pilot to deliver it directly to that
facility.
2-6-3d(1): Relay pertinent PIREP information to
concerned aircraft in a timely manner.
Finally (and IMHO the most important) from paragraph 2-1-2c: Provide additional services to the extent
possible, contingent only upon higher priority duties
and other factors including limitations of radar,
volume of traffic, frequency congestion, and
workload.
So all those additional services you are talking about ARE subjsct to your workload at the time, but if able, are required to be done. You are advocating telling a pilot to contact AFSS to find the smooth air, when you know it is FL310. You are advocating telling a pilot to call AFSS for a clearance and hang up, when all he is trying to do is get a clearance into the system. Those are taxpayers, the people who pay our salary, and if the workload permits, everyone should be willing to provide the maximum service possible.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Our facility has a strict policy of not filing flight plans outside our tower enroute structure. (contained in our SOP) If an AC FP times out or its just not in the system we advise them to contact company or FSS and issue them a frequency they can communicate with FSS on the ground. No exceptions. Sometimes it can be as quick as 2 minutes and at other times well over 10 minutes. I don’t care I have enough on my plate then doing someone else job.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I need to play devil’s advocate here even though I hate people who think they are devils advocates. I just think that we need to acknowledge all points of the argument.
1. I fully understand the union job is to protect the jobs of the people it represents. Which means to save the jobs is not to change the jobs. I feel that some in the FAA saw the FSS as outdated and a waste of money.
2. The FAA was fully aware of the unions job in protecting jobs so they felt, right or wrong, that privatizing the process was the way to go. We all have to agree that FSS provides a service that pilots choose to use but are not required to use. The FARs only require that pilots obtain weather information before flight but it does not specifically require from whom. Most airlines have private services and DUAT was supposed to handle the rest.
3. Now the FAA under the government privatization agenda, contracts Lockheed Martin to apparently provide services of the FSS. I don’t think LM was supposed to provide good FSS services but to teach pilots that you don’t need FSS. I really think the long waits, poor service and dropped calls was designed to stop pilots from relying on LM. With help from the economy, calls to FSS drop off greatly, teaching pilots to use more automated weather and flight planning sources. Even AOPA have a program to help pilots self brief and flight plan.
4. Now we come to the present day. IG hearings, charges of fraud waste and abuse, and a call to get rid of the LM contract. But the damage has already been done. Pilots are being taught to go to the web and not make a phone call. And aircraft technology has also surpassed the FSS system. Did you know that some aircraft come equipped with X-M satellite receivers that can receive almost real time radar and weather updates in flight. The technology is simple and easy to retrofit in to existing aircraft. On board radar will be a thing of the past with this technology.
5. Now the union and the public with demand the end to the waste and abuse of Lockheed Martin and the contract will be cancelled. No more FSS services. Everyone will have to use the automated weather and flight planning services that they have been training on. I hate to say this but.. MISSON ACOMPLISHED FAA and Lockheed Martin. End of Devil’s advocate.
Now the real question is not how the union is going to return the FSS employees back to the original positions but how the union helps employees return to the new NAS system. The days of local briefers are over. The FAA has retrained the pilots that that way is out of date and getting back the offices are now to expensive. . In my humble opinion, it is now time for the FAA to become the generators of the weather data at the source. X-M satellite has to get its information from somewhere. Right now it is from non-government, unregulated and without accountability sources. The union needs to get in there right now and look like they are leading the way into the new NAS and not trying to return to the old outdated system in place now.
(Don’t bust my chops about spelling and grammer with this post I only had a few minutes before I had to go to work)
January 30th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Robert Poole (I think the first name is Robert) of the Reason Foundation mentioned above was one of the ORIGINAL advocates of privatizing flight service, writing many articles about why this needed to be done. Very quiet on the subject since however, since Flight Service is now the “poster child” for outsourcing safety related positions. He definitely had the ear of George Bush, AND, the FAA did not try to make this easy on workers at all. They worked very hard to block us from jobs, and fight us in any of the venues in which we could appeal.
As far as what BEB wrote, and a comment about other services as workload permits, Lockheed has CLEARLY defaulted on doing their work, and ATC should not have to automatically pick up the slack.
“provide additional services to the extent possible” does not mean doing other facilities jobs. An enroute guy should not run the Approaches into ORD just because the controllers there don’t feel working hard that day”.
Everyone needs to carry their load, and Lockheed is not doing that.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:52 am
You know, understanding the problem is not only the first step in solving it – it is the essential step without which the problem cannot be solved. Blaming Lockheed’s problems on their desire for profit will NEVER fix the problem. You have to accept a few basic truths:
Profit is what drives the economy. Without profit, nothing gets created.
Customer satisfaction is what creates profit. If the customer is not happy, profit does not exist.
The Flight Service System under the Lockheed contract IS NOT private enterprise. It is a government outsourcing contract which directly and inversely ties profit to the amount of work – the less Lockheed does, the more they make. (This is true of any outsourcing contract where the work is provided to the public and paid for by the government.)
There is no need to speculate on whether Lockheed wants to drive pilots away – they said it IN WRITING at the beginning of the contract. “We want all pilots who are able to take advantage of self-briefing services to do so…”
The real problem is INCOMPETENCE and IGNORANCE. WHen you climb the food chain in Lockheed FSS you don’t get to a Lockheed guy until you hit the VP of Operations, who has NO Flight Service background. He depends on his subordinates to know flight service, and they are the same mid level FAA morons who got us into this mess in the first place. They don’t distribute calls nationwide becuase they want to kill people – they do it because they asked their managers if it was a good idea and the managers said YES. They don’t ignore radio calls to drive away pilots – they do it because the managers found they could pass the APL’s by ignoring the radio. Yes, they are driven by profit, but not at the expense of safety.
Imagine a new bean counter who decides GM can save a lot of money by only using half as many lug nuts to hold the wheels on. He doesn’t know one end of a car from another, so he sees nothing wrong with this. He asks the plant manager who says it’s a great idea, even though all the assembly line workers are screamng “Are you crazy? That’s UNSAFE.” The bean counter goes back to upper management, who also don’t know anything about cars, and tells them his idea has the plant managers approval, is perfectly safe, and will save a ton of money. Would you say this decision was based on profit or ignorance?
There are less than 400 people left in Lockheed who understand Flight Service, and our numbers are dropping daily. Once we’re gone the system is doomed. Wasting time blaming the profit motive and private enterprise is only going to ensure that the system collapses.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:32 am
“there’s a way to direct-dial straight to the sector controller on a telephone”
How??
January 30th, 2009 at 10:43 am
# PilotX Says:
“there’s a way to direct-dial straight to the sector controller on a telephone”
How??
##
1-800-WX-BRIEF
January 30th, 2009 at 10:47 am
The deal was for “Equal or Better Service” and that isn’t happening. A deal is a deal and LM is not holding up their end of the bargain with the taxpayers…and the FAA is not making them. If a private corporation signs a contract to perform a safety related government function, they should be held to the contract first and worry about the bottom line second. It is bad business to not fully understand what you’re bidding on and then underbidding because of that lack of understanding. If that is what happened, they should still be held to the terms of the contract and perhaps in the future, they’ll bid smarter. If they are truly losing money on this contract, (which I certainly don’t believe) they should have to “eat it”. That’s how you become a better business right?……Learn from your mistakes. Certainly the the taxpayer and pilot should not take it in the shorts in higher cost or reduced services because LM mismanaged their business. Definitely, the workload of the contractor should not be offloaded to tower and center controllers….I certainly want to them to concentrate on what their responsibilities are, not cover LM’s rear. If you want to run Flight Service like a business, then LM shouldn’t be given a pass when they screw up. Regardless of why it has happened, Safety and Service have been compromised….that is unacceptable and if the FAA won’t move on it then congress should.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:54 am
You guys that post about the availablity of all this information in the “new age” of technology miss the point. The issue here is not technology, but how to use that technology.
These posts are somewhat representative of the typical cowboy ignorance and arrogance surrounding flight weather and aeronautical information that needs to be understood to ensure safe flight. Not talking about flying the plane – that is another specialty. Were taking about what to do the information, how to interpret it, use it, and make each flight as safe as humanly possible.
This whole idea about the vast availablity of all the needed information is worthless if you don’t know what you’re doing. And I have this news flash for most non-airline and non-corporate jet pilots flying in the NAS — You’re arrogance about the subject of weather and gov’t aeronautical information is only exceeded by your ignorance. Seen it time and time again some know-it-all cowboy corkscrews one in (and usually with someone else onboard) because they don’t know what they are doing out there is very unsafe from a basic physics and psychological standpoint.
If you are an ATC controller, a GA pilot with all the freak’n gismos you can carry on your little plane, a doctor, a lawyer … NEWS FLASH … Don’t assume you know what the experienced Flight Service Specialist knows and has been watching all week and all day long. Even the NWS weather sites have a warning posted that their information does not constitute a pilot briefing. But their are cowboys on this board that know-it-all … all about arrogance and ignorance.
It can easily get you killed. But what would an FSS specialist know about it, right? Stick to your own training and speciality and live longer.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
A tower controller who enters a flight plan does not have the equipment available to properly do the job.
Putting aside the fact that there is no briefing information available the only information the FDIO accepts is call sign, aircraft type and equipment, airspeed, departure point, requested altitude and route of flight. There is no information on the pilot, how many souls on board…..Filing a flight plan to help a pilot out could actually be hurting him in the long run……FSS is better able to meet his needs or at least SHOULD BE.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I fully support sending it back to the LM FSS when pilots are trying to get information and when this is done it also needs to be written up somewhere and passed along. Alaska has kept all their FSS/AFSS and service continues at a high level, so the argument of FSS being outdated and obsolete is BS. The fact remains Lockheed needed a workforce in the lower 48 and the FAA gave them one otherwise there never would have been a contract. LH saw that the FAA has no oversight and really doesn’t give a crap about FSS so they have devised a plan to go down to a minimum service (mostly no service) and they still pocket the money. Since FSS still exists in Alaska it shouldn’t be to big a deal to bring it back into the fold of the FAA. Would you prefer to be briefed by someone with 15-25 years experience or someone with 1-2 years?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
FAAGuy said…
You know, you’re right- that’s exactly what I’m doing. And I think it’s arguable whether or not we’re supposed to be doing those “extra” services; you could say that the section of the AIM that tells pilots that ARTCC freqs are only to be used for controlling traffic is the official position of the FAA (after all, it’s in the FAA’s Official Guide to ATC Procedures) and therefore it’s the responsibility of ARTCC controllers to hew to that position as much as possible.
But here’s the bigger point, Guy; you are 100% right. Those are taxpayers. They DO pay the bills. The thing is… if they are supposed to be getting those services, that they are paying for, from Lockheed, and they can’t, THEY are getting screwed- but not by the ARTCC, TRACON, and ATCT controllers.
Those folks are getting screwed by Lockheed (which isn’t providing the service they’ve been contracted for) and by the FAA (which is not ensuring that the service is properly provided) and by the US Government in general (which is following a policy of contracting out services and then being slack in ensuring that the taxpayer is getting what they paid for).
The point is that it’s NOT MY JOB to help those guys out. In fact, by ARTCC and TRACON and ATCT facilities doing what you advocate- taking flight plans, doing ride reports, etc- we are COVERING FOR and ENABLING Lockheed’s negligence in doing THEIR job.
Well, no more. We’ve tried covering for them, and it isn’t working; it’s only encouraging Lockheed to cut back more, take more profits, and provide fewer services at lower quality than before.
Again, this isn’t the fault of the FSS staff. They’re stuck, working for an employer that not only doesn’t care about them but which actively dislikes them and wants them to be paid less (view Lockheed’s appeal of the DOL wage determination) and cut back benefits and disrupt their lives (moves to the hubs, firings, etc).
Lockheed actively takes action to try and stop unionization when these employees band together to help themselves, firing union activists and badmouthing the union. Don’t you dare expect me to feel sorry for Lockheed Martin being forced to provide the services that the American citizens are paying for.
As Joe Cool pointed out in one of the best comments I’ve ever read here…
Brilliant. (I wish I could write like that!) The less Lockheed does, the more money they make. Why shouldn’t they continue to slack off, FAAGuy, if we in the FAA continue to do as you advocate and pick up their slack?
For an agency talking a lot of smack about “accountability”, the FAA sure does something else. If the FAA leadership had any real cojones, they’d have done what I advocate in this blog YEARS ago. Lockheed’s having trouble providing the services? Tough ****! They’re getting paid for it, they bid the contract, MAKE THEM PERFORM and do NOT do their work for them!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
File UCRs if you see anything affecting safety, or taking you away from your job.
Grievances can be ignored (well, not really, but they usually are), UCRs can’t be ignored.
If pilots can’t get a hold of EFAS or Inflight, it is a safety issue, pure and simple. Flight plans WITHOUT fuel on board or number of souls on board or color, it is UNSAFE if there is a search and rescue, or a crash.
Partial Flight Plans should not be acceptable, EVER.
Bad NOTAMS, they should not be tolerated.
UCR is the way to go. File them, let them pile up, and the FAA can’t ignore them in this environment. If they ignore a safety concern, Congress and the press have shown they are ready to hear about it and report it.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Everyone who says Lockheed is not upholding the contract should really go find a copy and read it, because the FACT is that Lockheed IS delivering EXACTLY what the contract calls for. The contract was written by FAA morons without a clue and Lockheed is giving them exactly what they asked for. YOU may think that the contract includes service to pilots, but the fact is that it DOES NOT.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I want to follow on to my previous comment with more food for FAAGuy’s thought.
Let’s say you’ve got a son. He’s 18, fresh out of high school, no interest in going to college, and really no interest in doing anything other than hanging out with his buddies, getting drunk and chasing girls and occasionally going bird hunting.
You tell him “look, son, I know you’re having a good time and all, but you need to get a job and start paying rent.” He grudgingly goes out and gets a gig delivering pizzas, and moves from his room into the basement (since it has a separate entrance and he’s coming/going at all hours of the day and night).
But after things go okay when he first starts working and moved, he starts slacking off. He starts coming to you, asking for extra money for this and that- typically things that he didn’t forsee having to lay out money for.
Over time, he works less and less, paying you less and less rent.
Now, you have two choices. You can kick him in the butt (figuratively speaking- or literally, if need be) and tell him if he doesn’t pay his rent on time, he’s got to move out.
Or you can just keep giving him money, letting him get away with doing less and less work, and make his younger sister pay his rent for him.
Well, FAAGuy, the “we are all responsible for providing that service to the taxpayer, so we should help out Lockheed when they’re too busy” mindset? That’s letting the lazy son sit around and not live up to his end of the bargain and getting his sister to pay for his rent.
I’m of the “kick his butt up around his ears” mindset, myself. Having BEEN the lazy college dropout, I am in debt to my father for not putting up with my crap or giving me money to bum around forever. He made me (gasp) work and chip in for rent, and I’m better for it.
As Joe Cool pointed out, we’ve somehow allowed Lockheed to wrangle a contract where the less work they do, the more money they make. Their profit motive is “do as little as we can possibly get away with”, and that’s what they’re doing.
You might see my attitude as part of the problem, but the reality is that it’s the cure. Make them perform.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Reference the Lockmart contract: no one other than the top Lockmart officials or the FAA contract office has ever seen the contract! Maybe now under the FOIA we could see the fine print. Actually seeing the contract would have been the first order of business for IAM had that union won the vote. I would love to see that contract and compare it to the “Statement of Work” that was originally fostered by the FAA. This is why Lockmart fights the union so vehemently.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
By providing services that should normally be taken care of by FSS you could at time, put the safety of the rest of the TAX PAYERS you are suppose to be paying attention to. Calls on sector from an individual for a clearance off XYZ airport that should be handled by FSS is time consuming and distracting. Since we are so short staffed and never have D-sides anymore unless that is all they are certified to do (We train NEW HIRES straight to R-side since we have no choice, either train them on R-side and count towards D-side time or don’t train at all)
I sit without D-sides day in and day out and my shout lines are busy and someone calling off the ground for a clearance. Great job bozos in charge.
I very well understand these “other” services I provide are NOT OPTIONAL but on a time available basis. I might also ask why do we even have FSS if they are either not doing their job or doing such a crappy one that pilots are ignoring them? These people that are paying the taxes are not getting their money’s worth from LM/FSS. I find it smug that a member of management wants to quote the 7110.65 to “teach” us something that we already know.
At what point do these extra services that we are providing, that SHOULD be done by FSS and are being paid for by the tax payers no matter the outcome, become a detriment to safety? At what point do these distractions kill the flying public? What if something less happens and I have a deal while doing something that someone else should be doing and it costs my family some income? What if I can’t provide the service due to bad radio coverage and the pilot dies? Who is responsible then?
Nobody has even mentioned OSET reviewing every word we say makes it more of a pain to use plain language for ANYTHING that is recorded. Many people will not provide ANY “Extra” service in order to preserve a higher OSET score since some supes are too lazy to check on employees themselves, this is ALL they go on for a yearly review. A couple of these guys have gotten the best SCI you could get for doing less. Pay for performance, what a joke, kind of like what we are getting from LM. Pay for less performance.
When will the FAA get it? You get less out of people the more you squeeze them. When I enjoyed my job I wanted to do the best job I could, every single day. I did not and still don’t need some jagoff to stroke me for a job well done, What do they know anyhow? I could care less. I stopped being proud of what I do in ‘06, now its just a pay check. I am more ashamed than anything. The FAA’s management could have changed a great many things and not treated anybody poorly in the process, but they chose not to. I still see some of these jokers still strutting around like a big rooster and I have to laugh at them.
The prime example of what is wrong with the FAA is the management type that posted here that XYZ is NOT optional a per diagram this and page number that. Unless you plug in and know what I am doing then you have no idea what is going on anyhow. You don’t poo on people and have them do more. When I stop getting lied to, stop being treated like a second hand servant I will start doing more.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
FAA Guy;
Why do you expect controllers to follow the rules? The FAA doesn’t, they just change them to fit their plan. It isn’t to save the taxpayers money; IT’S TO BUST UNIONS AT ANY COST. The short term results of union-busting can be unpalatable, but the long term results can be golden. It’s simple politics, the GOP know that unions vote Dem in general and so it is in their interest to fragment that demographic as best they can. Over time the voting block becomes diluted, this was the Bush policy regarding LR. Now we have an administration that wants to shore up, if not expand the union vote, this is the way it is. THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY MATTERS IS STAYING IN OFFICE. VOTES, VOTES, VOTES!
You’re a sharp dude, I think. Put down that glass of Kool-Aid and walk to the light, brother!
January 30th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
It’s not so much what is in the “contract”. As stated above, this is a Government outsourcing of work that is still supposed to be provided, and the FAA is supposed to ensure the service is provided. If they wrote a bad contract, that is their fault (like the FAA even knows what a contract is). I don’t think Lockheed is meeting the APLS, and that is definitely part of the contract.
Lockheed is wrong to be taking advantage of this, and the FAA is wrong for their complete lack of competence in bidding this out, and in overseeing the contract.
And they are both wrong for working together to make sure the workforce had to go to Lockheed, and for misleading so many people on what this whole flight service debacle should have been.
It was stated that IAM would have been able to file an FOIA if they were voted in… The just filed one anyway, especially since Ron Petro is stating point blank that these Inaugural Day firings were “contractually driven”.
It all comes down to the less they do, the more they make.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
A little off topic, but do the Executive Orders( I believe they were EO’s) signed today by President Obama have any affect on you FSS folks?
I noted that they were specific to Federal contracts and required Contractors to retain employees when contracts changed. Did LM get wind of this and do what they did on inauguration day just to avoid this problem?
January 30th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
So. Its clear to me now. FSS is not needed. Most of the time, the real ATC guys can do all that crap that the fart sackers used to do. C’Mon. You can read it in all these childish comments that are in this blog on this subect.
Get real people. I say we can probably fire 1/3 of you, and the other 2/3 get a pay cut to match Obama’s pay ceiling he imposed on his cabinet members. C’mon NATCA pussies. Step up to the plate. Donate the difference between the imposed ceiling (100K ?) and your salary to charity. C’Mon you wimps. Take action.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
What is an OSET?
January 31st, 2009 at 5:01 am
Note:
I checked the one real measure we have to tell aircraft activity. FAA can sit all day and “guess” at levels- but they don’t know how much flying is being done if pilots no longer use the FSS system, and no longer bother to call in.
The only REAL measure that can show flight activity is: aviation gasoline deliveries.
In 2008, January through November, aviation gasoline deliveries were down just over 13% from the same period a year before.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgaupus1m.htm
At the same time, fatal GA accidents only dropped 4%, from 313 to 299. In fact, if you look at 2006 as well, deaths JUMPED from 301 to 313 for 2007, then fell just 4% in 2008 to 299.
So- the bottom line is this.
Gasoline consumption fell 13%, meaning that the number of hours of flying fell by 13%, but the number of fatal accidents only fell by 4%. Per flight hour then the accidents ROSE again in 2008.
Contracting Flight Service out CAUSED the number of deaths to increase per flight hour.
For that, FAA Management should have THEIR pay withheld, NOT the rank and file people who can’t stop stupid decisions like that.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:47 am
Desert man, if you are FAA, maybe you should be the first to go!!! If not, have a nice steaming mug of STFU!!!!!!
January 31st, 2009 at 7:59 am
Me, you said: “It’s not so much what is in the “contract”. As stated above, this is a Government outsourcing of work that is still supposed to be provided, and the FAA is supposed to ensure the service is provided. If they wrote a bad contract, that is their fault (like the FAA even knows what a contract is). I don’t think Lockheed is meeting the APLS, and that is definitely part of the contract.”
On the contrary, the wording of the contract is everything. If you sign a contract to cut someones lawn and the contract only specifies the front lawn, are you going to cut the back yard too? Are you going to weed the garden? If the contract says the grass cannot be more than 3 inches long I guarantee you are going to cut it when it reaches 3 inches and not before, and when you do cut it you are going to cut it as short as you can so you don’t have to do it again anytime soon. In fact, if the contract allows you to kill the grass with no penalty you are going to do just that. If the only operable clause in the contract is that the grass not be more than three inches high and there is no penalty for making it zero inches why wouldn’t you just spray some RoundUp, sit back, and colloect your money?
You may not “think” Lockheed is meeting the APL’s, but your opinion is irrelevant. They ARE. The problem is that the contract allows them to kill the grass, so that’s what they do.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:10 am
The contract, from what I understand, doesn’t award LM for service provided but for meeting the APL’s. The less service LM provides, the easier it is to meet those APL’s and the more profit they make. Nice, huh?
January 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am
John K:
don’t know what OSET stands for, but it is a team of supervisors who get to f*** off on m-f daytime schedules. they will pull a tape of a controller and count every single phraseology error. for instance, you give a detailed ride report to a pilot but forget to use “FL”…or you forget to use November…or any of dozens of mistakes that are not safety related. you make enough of them on one tape and you can get disciplined.
all it really is is yet another management boondoggle to inflate their numbers.
January 31st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Just A Slob,
OSET is exactly that, 3 FULL time supes off the boards listening and documenting everything you say AND DO. That’s right, every center is different and each are trying to keep their cushy positions off the boards, ours actually are writing up people for what ever they make up as WRONG. They make up crap as they go along and often WRONG on what they are documenting. Two FULL YEARS we have been requesting proper phraseology for deviations and ride reports STILL NO DOCUMENTATION, other than telling you on your tape review that YOU ARE WRONG. Oh I almost forgot, ours are actually looking at falcons to catch deviations ect.
Between these 3 and their boss you have $500K WASTED every single year and we can’t pay new hires more? I wonder why! I really don’t mind the tape talks, but there is no need to have anyone else other than the supe in charge of the crew do those, I mean they have only 4 or 5 people to watch every month. I actually understand being fiscally responsible to the tax payers for my salary, but I find it a hard sell when I see this kind of waste and have someone complain to me that my Time on Position was low this month. I see this kind of stuff as maddening, I can’t earn more than 24 hours credit (I don’t earn any, but some wish to) because it is a liability to the FAA, yet the management types can earn as much as they want…..how does management credit hours become less of a liability? If all the supes take leave for a shift (They do) they just stand up a free CIC and don’t backfill (ie this CIC is in the numbers as a controller)
You could go on for hours on what is being mismanaged in the FAA, nothing surprises me anymore. They come off with the attitude “If it does not adversely affect me, then the h with you.”
January 31st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
A couple of comments for FAA Guy…
First, it says something about you that you would identify yourself by that screen name. And, it’s not something positive.
Second, maybe we should just get the controllers to do the whole job of Flight Service and terminate the Lockheed/Martin contract altogether.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Joe Cool,
You state Lockheed is meeting the APLs.
What statistics do you base this on?
The 2As, where are briefings are rated? We may have passed a quarter or two, SO FAR (over three years).
OEs/ODs? Don’t think those are being met. We are allowed very few, and have had dozens per year.
Sure, we answer the phone in 5 seconds, but the safety related APLS are NOT BEING MET. Feel free to look at the 2A record, and the OE/ODs.
My point anyway was not about what a contract is, it is that the FAA has had zero oversight, and at times, has be COMPLICIT in helping Lockheed cheat on the evals.
The FAA agreeing to not do 2A evals while the Lockheed computer is down, that is out and out fraud. And they see nothing wrong with that, not if the head of the AFSS program can talk about it openly.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:02 pm
bigd Says:
January 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“A tower controller who enters a flight plan does not have the equipment available to properly do the job”.
Bullsh*t!
As a tower and radar controller, I have entered hundreds upon hundreds of flight plans into the FDIO. I also ASK the pilot ON A TAPE RECORDED FREQUENCY how many people on board and color of the aircraft. All of our voice comms are taped and easily retrieved if necessary. A tower or radar controller has all of the equipment necessary to properly do the job.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Okay, a couple of things…
OE/OD are covered by .56. LM conducts ops IAW FAA Orders whick include the .56. Only things defined in the .56 are OE/ODs. LM may have some internal standards over and above the .56, but I doubt it. So, everything LM does is not covered by an OE/OD as previously posted by someone.
Think about this: ATC, Pilots and FSS like to talk about safety. What causes more accidents weather or midairs/incursions? The answer is clearly weather. When was the last time two were ran together and that resulted in a “fine pink mist?” Can’t remember. Sure, maybe a couple in a non-control “ATCT” VFR pattern. But only a couple of those over a few years. Weather? Tons. Don’t believe me? Then start reading the FAA accident reports and NTSB reports.
Here’s the point.. FSS job is to keep aircraft safe by keeping them out of life-threating and dangerous weather –which happens every single day. And the accident statistics prove this is the most dangerous of all of the operations – IN FLIGHT WEATHER. Period. ATC controllers have a hard time with this because it bumps against their egos, but if they think real hard they have to admit the truth to themselves. They have job to do – seperate airplanes. FSS/AFSS specialists have a job to do – Keep aircraft safe and away from the weather while not inhibiting air commerce. Not an easy task. It becomes very complex very quickly in bad weather and low-level long distance flights. ATC is basically straigt foward 5/1 or 3/1. Now, getting to that point and keeping them all apart can become very complicated very quickly too! Both specialties have their jobs to do…
Now, the so-called “APLs” that everyone keeps throwing around here are alledgedly the measures that need to be used to evaluate FSS activities. In my opinion, these “APLs” miss the target. In fact, some of them are an absolute joke. (anwsering a call in 10 seconds, entering a PIREP in 10 seconds, or whatever…) The real APL or measure of performance is whether the pilot/aircraft full of people is able to conduct a safe flight in the most efficient manner; and arrive at point b. The second “real” APL is whether aircraft are falling out of the sky on to the property and person of the general public. Part of the FSS job is to make sure an aircraft does not come through the roof of your house when there is bad weather in your neighborhood. Don’t think so? Think again, FSS specialists think about this as much as they think about the aircraft/pilot… that is their responsibility to ensure safety for the pilot and the public. Ensure safe flight but do not unduely inhibit air commerce.
The arrogance of many is partly to blame for the demise of FSS. Don’t think you know everything about someones job or a function of the NAS unless you’ve actually done the job. Otherwise, you have no credibility. You just plain don’t have it.
So, obviously this is not some sort of literary work. But I hope/think I got the message across. That is what counts, not the spelling and format (in my opionion).
January 31st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Timmy Tim,
Thank you very much!!! I’m so sick of arrogant controllers thinking that Flight Service is worthless. I don’t claim to be able to do their job, they shouldn’t think they can do ours!!!!
January 31st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Sigh;
It f-wads like you that are costing people there jobs, you selfish, simple-minded little pea-brain.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:50 am
Bullsh*t!
As a tower and radar controller, I have entered hundreds upon hundreds of flight plans into the FDIO. I also ASK the pilot ON A TAPE RECORDED FREQUENCY how many people on board and color of the aircraft.
Oh puhlease. Living and working in AK, I never have asked that BS. I would have no idea how to enter it in the FIDO. Yes Flight Service people do a great job, that is needed. No, they are not controllers.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:14 am
BABS,
Are you on drugs? As a controller, I have never met any controller that thought that FSS was worthless and that they could do that job better.
Chip on your shoulder; I understand that. I think you need to understand that most of us want the old FSS back because they did an excellent job, especially compared to today’s mess.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:46 am
Me, Let me answer your questions.
>>”What statistics do you base [Lockheed meeting the APL’s} this on?”<>”The 2As, where are briefings are rated? We may have passed a quarter or two, SO FAR (over three years).<>”OEs/ODs? Don’t think those are being met. We are allowed very few, and have had dozens per year.”<>”Sure, we answer the phone in 5 seconds, but the safety related APLS are NOT BEING MET. Feel free to look at the 2A record, and the OE/ODs.”<>”My point anyway was not about what a contract is, it is that the FAA has had zero oversight, and at times, has be COMPLICIT in helping Lockheed cheat on the evals.”<>”The FAA agreeing to not do 2A evals while the Lockheed computer is down, that is out and out fraud. And they see nothing wrong with that, not if the head of the AFSS program can talk about it openly.”<<
That’s the FAA, not Lockheed.
The bottom line is that the FAA doesn’t know what they are doing. Neither does Lockheed. When you accept a contrat to perform work you know nothing about the only thing you have to go on is what the contract holder says, and that is just what Lockheed is doing.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am
Oops, let me try that again.
Me, Let me answer your questions.
“What statistics do you base [Lockheed meeting the APL’s} this on?”
The published APL levels, which show LM is meeting all the APL’s for the last two quarters. The only ones not passing for the entire year were 2a’s and OE/OD (most becuase of perceived 2a failures.)
“The 2As, where are briefings are rated? We may have passed a quarter or two, SO FAR (over three years).”
What you have to understand is that 95% of 2a failures are bogus. I failed one because the pilot asked me for an outlook for a taildragger flight that evening. I told him that the winds were strong at the current time, but that the front would pass early afternoon and the winds would shift to the southwest and drop to less than ten knots. I failed because the briefing was supposed to be an outlook, and by providing the current winds for comparison I deviated from the handbook. Would any sane person consider that a failure? That’s the kind of thing we used to get awards for.
“OEs/ODs? Don’t think those are being met. We are allowed very few, and have had dozens per year.”
Again, most of these are made-up errors by clueless FAA morons to avoid paying LM bonuses. For example, a pilot requests a standrd briefing, interrups you part way through it and hangs up, then lands on a closed runway because he didn’t get the notam. Is this an OE in a sane world?
“Sure, we answer the phone in 5 seconds, but the safety related APLS are NOT BEING MET. Feel free to look at the 2A record, and the OE/ODs.”
The safety related APL’s are a joke and don’t have anything to do with safety. One “safety related” APL we sometimes fail is the one that says if we actually conduct search and rescue for an aircraft we fail. That’s like penalizing firemen for responding to fire alarms. Are you saying you agree with this?
“My point anyway was not about what a contract is, it is that the FAA has had zero oversight, and at times, has be COMPLICIT in helping Lockheed cheat on the evals.”
The FAA has 100% oversight, and if the FAA makes the rules, they cannot, by definition, cheat.
“The FAA agreeing to not do 2A evals while the Lockheed computer is down, that is out and out fraud. And they see nothing wrong with that, not if the head of the AFSS program can talk about it openly.”
That’s the FAA, not Lockheed.
The bottom line is that the FAA doesn’t know what they are doing. Neither does Lockheed. When you accept a contrat to perform work you know nothing about the only thing you have to go on is what the contract holder says, and that is just what Lockheed is doing.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
My post on this did not get in. I re-wrote it.
The FAA AGREED to not do evals. Agreed to WHAT? Lockheed must have asked. What exactly did PETRO mean by the FAA AGREED to not do evals. It wasn’t just the FAA, as you say.
Lockheed was involved, deal with that fact.
Words mean things.
The ODs/OEs are NOT made up. Read the many QA bulletins we get about TFR or AIRSPACE violations, you may learn something. That is what they are for.
I was not talking about the Search and Rescue issue, so, all due respect, NO, I do not have a problem with firemen responding to fire alarms.
What I have a problem with is a controller in Missouri clearing a plane (through flight service relay) to take off from Farmingdale, New Mexico, because some specialist put in the wrong airport identifier. The plane departs flying into some unknowing controllers airspace.
What I have a problem with is a pilot in Florida getting a briefing, and the specialist gives the local weather, and doesn’t even know the pilot is flying up through the DC ADIZ.
We get a bunch of QA Bulletins about these TFR and AIRSPACE violations, so, I really do not understand how you think they are “made up”.
The 2As. Missed airmets, missed TFRs. Those are the main causes of failures now. We are past the days (for the most part) where leaving out the word “automated” would lead to a failure (even back then, Dan Courain stated we were not failing the APL because of the little things, it was for the big omissions even back then for the overall score).
I can’t argue with you if you think all these airspace and TFR violations are “made up”, or that Lockheed did no wrong in the evals being suspended.
I don’t think Petro LIED, and I don’t think QA is making up these stories.
Do you?
February 1st, 2009 at 10:43 am
I said the FAA had zero oversight, and you stated the FAA had 100% oversight.
My point, and some of the articles on here, has been that the FAA has not been doing its oversight. Especially on the staffing, the number of facilities, etc. And especially when they agreed not to do evals.
And before you say ‘well, that is all the FAA’s fault, and not Lockheeds (cause you have shown that you will), please re read Mr. Ciprianos testimony to Congress.
Mr. Cipriano worked for Lockheed BTW.
Facts are stubborn things. Ask QA, when you go to read those bulletins you must have missed… since you think ODs are made up.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
I didn’t say all OE’s were made up. I said most. The last one I saw concerned a pilot who flew from New Jersey to Ohio, made a navigational error, and ended up in the ADIZ. The briefer took the OE because he hadn’t mentioned the ADIZ. Do you think that’s a valid OE?
You have a contract to cut someone’s lawn and your John Deere breaks down. You have to use a weed-eater instead. You ask the guy if he won’t evaluate your work until you get your mower fixed and he agrees. Who do you think is at fault here? I’m sure you might say sure, check out how I did with the weed eater and please take away my bonus, but realistically no one else will do that.
I never said I thought the current system is safe – it IS NOT. All I’m saying is that Lockheedc is doing what the contract says to do, and if the FAA refuses to change the contract (which is unlikely since they are as clueless as Lockheed) you can’t hold Lockheed responsible just because YOU think it should be done another way. The ultimate responsibility lies with the FAA. They have complete oversight authority – if they choose not to excercize it, or don’t do it because they don’t understand it, that’s the fault of the FAA. Why would Lockheed either deviate from to contract to do what YOU think is safe and lose millions of dollars?
February 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Great topic again BEB. These topics on FSS sure get a lot of traffic. It really touches base throughout the NAS. I hope LM doesn’t push ERAM through like they did FS21…
February 1st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Lockheed has no authority to implement ERAM. Only the FAA has that.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
# bubba j Says:
February 1st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Lockheed has no authority to implement ERAM. Only the FAA has that.
I see no difference.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Myview,
I hear alot of controllers on this and other blogs, when the subject is Flight Service, it seems at least half talk bad about or just plain insult Flight Service Specialists. They belittle the importance of the job we do. When we say it would’ve been nice to have a shot at some of the smaller towers, guys write in about how the one exFSS trainee they had was worthless and they paint us all with the same brush stroke.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Well, we agree that it is unsafe. That is for sure. And we haven’t even talked about NOTAMS, which are probably the worst of all.
The other scam Lockmart is aware of, and letting go on, is the FS21 tagging and announcing evaluators if the phone number ID shows up.
Lockheed is the contractor always spouting ethics, and they should never have asked the FAA to stop evaluations, period. If Lockheed asked the FAA to take a bribe, and the FAA agrees, the FAA IS NOT THE ONLY ONE AT FAULT. They BOTH are.
The contract is supposed to be evaluated for the quality of service, it doesn’t say just the quality of service when the computers work right, just the quality of service. If a crash happened as a result of a bad briefing, and the family sued, do you expect Lockheed and the FAA to get off the hook just by saying “well, the computer did not work, so forget it”.
Or if you get evaluated by a cop by radar, the excuse that your speedometer did not work is not going to be valid.
What if an airline had no way to inspect their engines properly for a week, but they had to keep providing the service they provide, should they ask the FAA to look the other way for that week, and the FAA says OK. The airline is not at fault there?
The evaluations on the briefings should happen anytime.
Lockheed should never have asked in the first place. How is that so hard to understand.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I think the FAA agreed because it is also in their best interest to pretend FS21 is what they thought it was. There would be a record of an unusual spike in eval failures that would have to be explained with the computer failure. If they don’t do evals, the failure rate doesn’t send up a red flag that there’s a problem.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
The potential for a lawsuit due to a crash was mentioned previously. I might be mistaken, but didn’t the government indemnify LM, or underright the liability some how. I seem to remember this to be the case. If so, how many so-called “private” companies have the taxpayer picking up the liability caused by the companies actions? Is this true? If so, what a deal!
February 1st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
FromAway Says:
“”
Lockheed has no authority to implement ERAM. Only the FAA has that.”"
“”I see no difference.”"
Well, you said: “I hope LM doesn’t push ERAM through…” Yo unow agree that Lockheed has no authority to do what you just sxaid you hoped they woudln’t do, but see no difference? An accurate statement would have been “I hope the FAA doesn’t push ERAM through…”
February 1st, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Let me put this as simply as I can – THE FAA SHOULD NOT BE DOING EVALUATIONS AT ALL! Do you get grocery clerks to evaluate doctors? Do you get lawyers to evaluate carpenters? You CANNOT evaluate someone if you have NO CLUE what they do. The FAA evaluators have made things FAR WORSE.
This whole discussion started because there is this idea that if the FAA would just enforce the contract things would be fine. THE CONTRACT IS A JOKE! The idea that the FAA can fix what’s wrong with LM flight service – THE FAA ARE THE ONES WHO BROKE IT!
The ONLY ones who can provide safe and efficient flight services are the 400 or so of us left over from before the contract, and no one listens to us.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Yeah, if there are even 400 originals left.
It gets thinner and thinner around here.
I agree the contract is a joke, I just hold Lockheed as much at fault as the FAA. If LM cared about safety, things would be run differently.
To have cops in our parking lot when firing people just shows they think WE are the problem. We are the only thing that kept this going.
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 am
Me,
It’s not an issue of Lockheed caring about safety. They don’t know it’s unsafe. The ones who know are the 400 or so left and as Joe Cool points out, they don’t listen to us.
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 am
I disagree. Lockheed sees we are busy on some days in the winter. They know in the summer we are going to get slammed. managers have said this. We are going to have 30% less people this summer, fuel prices are down, and we will be putting in a new computer system again (BABS II).
Summer of 06 and 07 all over again. Lockheed knows this.
Great Lakes and NE were busy today. How is it going to be Memorial Day weekend?
We are setting up for the same exact type of failure as before, and Lockheed and Jim Washington both talked about the lessons learned. If NE and AGL briefers are busy now, just wait. Lockheed knows this is coming… And they made a decision to put profit first, and staff as needed now (winter), and summer, well, that is a long time from now I guess. How could they not know calls are going to be missed next summer. They really do not care. They don’t care about the employees, or about the phones actually getting answered.
And Lockheed sees all of the ODs we are getting. If they cared about safety, they would not be letting so many people go.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 am
The last 20 comments or sounds like a fart sackers pity party. STFU already.
My View said – “As a controller, I have never met any controller that thought that FSS was worthless and that they could do that job better.”
Hey My View, I think you are the one on drugs brother. Are you kidding me? I don’t think there are any controllers I know who think you fart sackers are worth a crap. Find some other work. With all your technical knowledge and education you could easily qualify for, oh say a greeter at Wal-Mart. I know. How about you organize a greeters union? Go out and get all the greeters to sign up for your union. If NATCA won’t do it I’m sure brother Johnny Carr would be thrilled to do it. Just pay him the few cents he’s out from his cold calling gig. Rumor has it Johnny has already applied for a greeters job at the local Wal-Mart. What’s funnier is that he didn’t get the job. A ex-fart sacker got it!
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Hey desert monkey, how you likin’ that B-scale, bro? Us po’ fart-sackers sure love these fat paychecks…
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Getting $150000 PLUS per year doing this fart sacker job, with my FAA retirement included. Not bad, and probably more than most ATC folks. Should try it, fart saking ain’t bad when my sh** don’t stink!
Sure some coworkers got screwed, but that is OK, it’s meant much more money for me. If they planned right, they would not have lost their retirements anyway, so I don’t feel bad.
These whiners actually want a union, so they will have even less money.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:35 am
Monkey,
I stand by my comment, that I have never met a controller that thinks FSS is worthless or that the specialists are worthless.
They are a valuable tool. Just because the FAA/LM don’t appreciate them, doesn’t mean we don’t.
I doubt I’ll get a job at Wal-Mart anytime soon. Maybe in 5 years when I retire at age 50.
You may think that controllers and FSS specialists don’t have any true skills, but I can tell you, that not only am I a highly paid professional, but I am also a highly skilled professional. I deserve/earn every cent I make.
You, I imagine, are a pencil-pushing waste of taxpayer dollars, that is still bitter that I make more than you. Course, no doubt, I have more responsibility than you do, since mine-sweeper doesn’t really count.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Well so much for any intelligent discussion. It seems were all out in the school yard acting like children. Still.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Wake up tower flowers and center pukes. What has happened to FSS is your future.
If you are not replaced by automation you will be contracted out. It will happen and you can’t stop it. Then you will be gone before you ar ready.
I had Thirty five plus years in air traffic, no OD’s, OE’s, and no pilot complaints. I had outstanding ratings, played all the games training, quality assurance, details to ACY, OEX, and DC. I worked pilot meetings, briefed airshows and worked with other agencies to insure we were putting out the best possible product. I played the Lockmart game, no failed evaluations, meet all APL’S, committees, workgroups, airshows pilot meetings etc etc… Then you wake up one day RIF’ed and you realize you can no longer do the job you enjoy most in life.
This is the road you are on.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Wake Up Call,
Just think, It won’t be long until the only WX readers (we’re not briefers anymore)left will be the LM hires who don’t even know they’re doing it wrong and unsafe. That’s what the FAA, LM, and AOPA wants!!!
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
My VIew, Do you work in Alaska?
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Einstein,
I’m from the lower 48.