Goodbye

Although it takes a little longer to get the mesage out, I have decided that a national gig over-rides a local one. I remain constant in my goal for you, as my personal goal is unreachable. I will serve as long as I am able to aptly do so. "We" shall always top "Me," and I hope those are your expectations, they were always mine.

Goodnight, but not good-bye.

We're the government, trust us

After my post on airspace redesign, I felt that I wasn't giving enough credit to J. Mac McClellan. Mr. McClellan penned the pilot perspective on the lack of pavement in New York and Northern New Jersey in his column for www.flyingmag.com. I have no problem giving a pilot some props for being right, but after reading the article for the fifth time, I realized that he's not only right, he's Mike Boyd right! So rather than look a gift horse in the mouth, I'm going to ride that horse for all it's worth. Another except:

To show you how flexible and innovative our present airspace system can be in the face of almost impossible runway conflict and congestion, look at Teterboro Airport just west of New York City. Teterboro's Runway 19 points almost directly at Newark, and the airports are only a few miles apart. When wind direction dictates that Runway 19 be used at Teterboro, the same wind means the parallel Runway 22s will be active at Newark. The stream of airliners crossing Teterboro on final for Runway 22 at Newark are so low they don't allow enough room for standard IFR separation for Runway 19 departures from Teterboro.

The solution for Teterboro departures, at least when the weather is 3,000 foot overcast with three miles visibility or better, is the unique Dalton departure. Pilots who ask for the Dalton — it cannot be assigned without pilot request — take off on Runway 19, but are actually departing VFR. At 800 feet in the climb a pilot flying the Dalton turns right to 280 degrees and continues the climb to 1,300 feet with a maximum speed limit of 190 knots. As soon as the turn is completed and the controllers issue a clearance to climb above 1,300 feet, the flight is automatically converted from VFR to IFR and everything is back to normal ATC procedures.

The Dalton is a bit of a rule beater because it puts the burden to maintaining separation on the pilot departing Teterboro for the first few miles because an airplane approaching Newark may not always have the full 1,000-foot vertical separation IFR standards require. But it's no different than a visual approach where traffic separation obligation transfers to the pilots, and it gets airplanes out of Teterboro without having to wait for a gap in the stream of Newark arrivals.

Rule Beater? Flexible? Innovative? Yes, it's a brilliant weasel move that just begs to be made into an Flight Management System (FMS) or Required Navigation Procedure (RNP) departure. Separation? I'll let you, the users and any NTSB investigators that read this be the judges.

Here's the chart for the Dalton.I haven't seen this much red since the stock market dive in '87. Just some notes: the pilot has to ask for it, maybe because assigning it would make somebody liable, and caution wake turbulence, Newark arrivals descending overhead from 3000 to 1800 feet. Technically, it's all clean and legal. The TEB departure remains clear of the controlled Class B airspace. The pilot asked for it. The 1300 foot restriction on the climb has 500 feet of VFR separation from the promised descent of the EWR arrivals (regardless of weight class). Ahhh, but a funny thing happened on the way to Liberty (International).

The EWR ILS RWY 22L approach.Somehow, someway, the crossing altitude at AYRON got changed from 1800 to 1481 feet without being included on the Dalton Departure plate. What that means is that you now could have 1.7 miles and 181 feet of separation under a heavy jet instead of the printed, and promised, 1.7 miles and 500 feet.

Again, like I said, all clean and legal, technically, because the pilot requested it. Ethically, morally, another falsehood foisted upon the users because of the lie printed there in black and white. The controllers can't do a thing about it. The users can. Stop using this deathtrap procedure now that you have the facts. The NTSB can. Cancel the procedure before our luck runs out. Heck, the FAA can. After-all, "we do the right thing, even when nobody is looking."

Oh, and if you are a pilot at TEB, bear in mind that since Marion Blakey dropped the "schedule less flights" bomb, Continental Airlines (the major user of EWR) has started to consider bigger planes as a means of decreasing the amount of flights. Wake turbulence roulette at its finest.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

The ink has barely dried on my printed out PDFs of the Northeast Airspace Redesign and the FAA Flight Plan for 2008-2012. As I searched the headlines and came across headlines that dealt with FLeMs at BTV with no experience and trainees leaving Oakland Center, the thing that irked me most was the continued coverage that lame-duck Administrator Blakey continues to garner. She obviously will not go quietly into that good night like some unwelcome house guest or worse yet, an infestation of vermin.

Her speech at the Aero Club on September 11, 2007 contained the following:

To be clear, the airlines need to take a step back on the scheduling practices that are at times out of line with reality. Passengers are growing weary of schedules that aren’t worth the electrons they’re printed on. Airline schedules have got to stop being the fodder for late night monologues. And if the airlines don’t address this voluntarily, don’t be surprised when the government steps in. Drawing down the schedule at Chicago was not my happiest hour, but it could come to that on the East Coast as well.

She later added for www.bloomberg.com:

"You've got schedules that simply can't physically be operated accept under the most optimal of circumstances,'' Blakey said of Newark and JFK. "We don't have optimal days that often.''

Wait a second, wasn't the Airspace Redesign shoved, er, sold to any eager listener because of its proven ability to cut delays by 20%? I didn't find anything regarding the drawing down of schedules at EWR, JFK, LGA and PHL.

So I checked the Flight Plan and a few other choice quotes from the outgoing Inquisitor. Twice the amount of today's traffic (maybe more) by 2025. She sold the users and Congress some line of garbage, er, promise regarding NextGen and its ability to grow with, and meet, the demand. The Flight Plan mentions reliever airports but doesn't get specific. The only definite promises I read are about reducing separation BEFORE the NextGen implementation. And it will, like the Nontract, be an implementation.

The remarks at the Aero Club only back up what everyone outside of the beltway already knows. The smoke and mirrors carnival barking has opened the door for funding, but the truth is that today's amount of pavement and terminal gates can't meet the schedules in use now. It's a damned embarrassment that she waited until there were only two days left in her term to start telling the truth but I guess you have that "luxury" after spending 5 years setting up where your next paycheck is coming from.

James C. May, President of the Air Transport Association, wrote in USA Today on August 8, 2007:

...ensure that operations at the New York airports meet the hourly rates the Federal Aviation Administration says they can handle safely. This well-documented reduction in ATC operational productivity must be corrected.

Sorry, James, looks like you got hoodwinked by a bad promise too.

Separated at Birth

The FAA recently released their Flight Plan for 2008-2012. While it would take about 30 blog entries to identify and condemn all of the falsehoods, it is important to note that the FAA continues to foist the illusion that staffing has nothing to do with capacity, delays or errors. I hate to rehash old material but:

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor…asserts there is no historical correlation between staffing levels and OEs (operational errors), based on numbers recorded over the past 8 years.

(from http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=3f94dc5f-8b3b-40fd-80ac-408e348dbb8e)

Okay, how’s this Ian. Take one of your pencil-pushing, bean-counting weenies and investigate what the “culture change” and management control of staffing have done for capacity and delays. Here’s a portion of an old entry:

In June of 2005, the FAA (at NY TRACON) vowed to take back the work schedules as part of It’s missive to restore Management’s Rights (5 U. S. C. 7106). Although they failed to present any type of reasonable argument above and beyond the claim that they would sacrifice training days for the sake of cutting scheduled overtime, the higher skill set plowed on in violation of Title 5 because they needed to send a message to the controllers. Any change to the basic watch schedule must be accomplished in accordance with 5 USC 6131 with a burden of proof attached to it regarding the efficiency of service and the realized cost reduction. Naturally, none of these rules were ever followed and don’t fool yourself, let’s not call them laws because lawbreakers go to prison, rule-breakers move up unless your boss decides to throw you under the bus to save him/herself.

Anyway, the disingenuous fallout of all of this was that the FAA would put out a schedule that It knew wasn’t capable of satisfying the operational needs of the system. The “promise” was that Management would “augment” the staffing for any particular shift as needed as It determined need for personnel for said tour of duty…Management’s rights. However, they forgot to tell the controllers their intent was to cut staffing by 15-33% and the process to “augment” the schedule would be initiated with only minutes (not hours, not days, not weeks) of advance warning. How easy would it be to claim that controller’s were refusing overtime when the FAA gave them a 45 minute warning to come to work on their day off?

The NY TRACON (N90) and their 3 major airports top the list of “most delayed” for the first quarter of 2007. ORD is 4th and PHL is 5th, hence the PHL/NJ/NY Airspace redesign. This, naturally, just before the (previous) worst year on record for delays. What would you expect from a facility where the ATM impregnates a trainee and a former supervisor found guilty of sexual harassment returns as an OM?

The FAA and Its corporate model took control of the work schedules, shift and facility staffing for every facility beginning in 2005 and we are now in the second, and worst, full year for record aircraft delays. I’ll allow you to connect point A and point B. You get what you pay for, or maybe you don’t get what you don’t pay for. Delays and staffing are conjoined twins, untimely ripped apart for the benefit of the FAA.

Because, "I said so," isn't a reason.

The FAA rolled out their final decisions on the planned redesign of the airspace for PHL/NJ/NY on September 5th. While James C. May, President of the Air Transport Association, and his band of sycophantic suck-ups are applauding the measures, people that will be affected by the changes and people that actually know what is going on are efforting to let this plan fly by like a lead balloon.

The populace is upset about noise. Congress is upset about the voracity of the FAA. Users are concerned about what is being touted as the biggest sham since Robert Preston tried to rook River City in "The Music Man." Probably too dated on that one, so maybe its the biggest sham since Phil Hartman sold Springfield a monorail on "The Simpsons."

The New Canaan Advertiser (http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/newcanaan/22395.shtml) reports:

"The federal government is not above the law,” Attorney General Richard Blumenthal proclaimed from the steps of Town Hall Wednesday, August 29. Mr. Blumenthal went on to criticize the FAA, calling it a “lawless government” for not disclosing an environmental impact statement to the public, which he said can be viewed as a violation of the law.

Congressman Christopher Shays then stepped up:

“With all due respect, the FAA is the most arrogant agency I’ve dealt with,” said Fourth District U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, who has had a bill to block FAA redesign funding defeated 65-360 in the House and has been denied requests to meet with FAA officials.

Heck, they even got an attorney to explain the skullduggery:

Retired attorney Michael G. Kroposki explained how the FAA has been able to circumvent this requirement. He said environmental concerns are determined by the total amount of delays causing planes to stay in the air, thus raising pollution levels. Calling the Fairfield County (Stamford) study a “blue-sky analysis,” Mr. Kroposki said that the study was performed on a fair-weather day — one that would have the least amount of planes in holding patterns around the area.

Things aren't going much better in the empire state, as reported at http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/airspace_Engel-08Sep07.html:

Engel takes FAA to task over new airspace plan

Washington – Westchester-Rockland Congressman Eliot Engel took to the floor in Congress Friday to criticize the Federal Aviation Administration’s action in approving a new airspace redesign for the northeast area saying the FAA “misled as well as stonewalled, used bureaucratic resistance, vague and extremely complicated maps, and deliberately manipulated information.”

The FAA this week announced the selection of a new airspace plan for the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia airspace.

Engel said he is “deeply disturbed” by the agency’s actions that could place up to 600 airplanes a day over Rockland and Westchester counties.

“The FAA created their proposal with zero input from the people whose lives would be most harmed by the proposal. There was no adequate notification for elected officials or the public throughout the process,” Engel said in remarks on the House floor.

He called the agency’s action “unconscionable” and said his constituents “expected better, and they deserved better.”

Engel warned his House colleagues that if the FAA got away with behaving this way in the northeast corridor, other sections of the country could suffer the same fate.

The Garden State is also getting involved (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/washington/05cnd-flights.html?hp):

The town of Elizabeth, New Jersey, said it filed suit in federal court to block the F.A.A. plan.

United States Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, opposes the plan.

The Times did manage to sneak a peek beyond the smoke and mirrors:

The F.A.A. plan is not designed to make room for more air traffic, merely to handle existing flights and expected growth more efficiently. But if the skies are unknotted somewhat above the New York area, airlines could be encouraged to add flights that increase delays.

“One could draw that conclusion,” said Leo Prusak, an F.A.A. official overseeing air traffic in the New York area.

I could give you more from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, but let's get a pilot's take on it (from http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=838&page_number=1):

The point of this — other than the obvious, that New York is a pain in the butt at rush hour — is that pavement, not airspace, is the fundamental congestion problem. There was plenty of space in the air, but only one airplane could use the runway at a time, and it was being used for landings. If Westchester had a parallel runway, takeoffs could have been conducted as soon as the landing airplane was down and rolling. Without that extra runway, there was no way capacity could be increased. Pilots were doing an excellent job of spacing themselves on the visual approach, and the airplane ahead was turning off the runway as the next one was nearing the numbers. Only formation landings could have increased capacity, and nobody is ready for that.

Every pilot knows that it is concrete, not airspace, that puts the final limit on capacity, but to hear the airlines argue for new fees and limits on business aviation, you would think it is the opposite. And the FAA sides with the airlines. The administrator has repeatedly said that without an overhaul of the airspace system, and without implementation of a new automatic dependent surveillance system based on GPS, air travel will become impossible. I, too, favor the precision of an ADS-B airspace system, but I know that it can't solve the real problem, which is lack of runways where we need them.

Still not convinced? How about a quote from NATCA President Pat Forrey at www.cbsnews.com:

"You wanna double the aircraft in the sky? Do it," said Patrick Forrey, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "We just need more controllers and more runways to land 'em. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what whiz-bang stuff you got."

Okay, let's be fair and get fair and balanced statement from the FAA. Who better than Steve "Wrong-Way" Kelley?

“There are people who will have a different noise experience,” said Steve Kelley, manager of airspace redesign at the F.A.A. Of opponents, Mr. Kelley said, “many of them are the same ones who say, ‘Do something about the delays.’ ”

Didn't anyone read page 15 of the official Record of Decision (at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/nas_redesign/regional_guidance/eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/media/ROD_FINAL_FINAL_090507_LK.pdf)?

Noise reduction is not a Purpose and Need for Airspace Redesign. In the case of the national airspace redesign (NAR), reduction of noise is not appropriately identified as a Purpose.

This is the FAA doing this. The imposed work rules FAA. The cut and run, find yourself another job while still working with the, FAA. They can do whatever they want.

10 years worth of misappropriated funds and I'm still not sure if the promised 20% reduction in delays means that 20% less aircraft will be delayed, or maybe we can just get one JetBlue flight out of JFK on Valentine's Day in less than 14 hours.

A Real, Stand Up Guy

A year has come and gone since the FAA implemented it’s “contract” upon the Air Traffic Controllers represented by NATCA. The “contract” was supposed to be about how management took back management’s right’s and imposed the rules that would effect their “culture change” and be economically viable for budgetary concerns that will eventually encompass the implementation of “NexGen,” the twisted pipe dream which is imagined to increase capacity by reducing the airborne separation requirements. All nice, if we can just survive to get to a workable model.

The FAA cancelled another Kool-Aid convention this year because, at the time, there was very little to add to the mass brain washings that took place in August of 2006. Ahhh but performance appraisals are coming up and the world wouldn’t be safe without a stupid, extremely futile, gesture on behalf of the FAA as a means of further punishing it’s workforce. The POS has found such a gesture.

The manager at Teterboro Tower has decided that effective September 28, the Local and Ground controllers must stand while on position from 0700 to 2300. Without embarrassing too many people, let’s just say that the decision has Agency support about as high up as one would care to ask. Said support is based upon the types of errors that have been occurring recently so as “to ensure that we are providing the operational service that is expected.” So there you have it, the FAA’s final solution and the tower actually got 30 days of advance notice for this unilaterally imposed change in working conditions. Let's all goose-step over to the bonfire, we're burning Title V of the United States Code!

Some background. Teterboro is located less than 10 miles from Newark Liberty International and is a part of the FAA’s 35 facilities used in the daily delay report at www.ato.faa.gov. On any given shift, the tower will staff a Local, Ground and Clearance Delivery position. Outer Local, LRAC (radar), Sequencer, Cab-Coordinator and Flight Data are secondary considerations based upon how many people show up. This hardly constitutes any initiative to staff to traffic, as with most facilities. The policy is more like, “let’s see who shows up and go from there.”

The point being that it would not be outside the realm of possibility for someone to be forced to stand for up to six hours of any given eight hour shift. BTW, Teterboro still has a mandatory one person midnight shift. TEB did almost 189,000 operations in 2006 (an off year actually) and if anyone can get some LEX stats, I’d like to see them.

So, NATCA controllers, your choice is to wait for this tripe to reach your facility, or implement it on your own. Stand up for the stand up people at Teterboro tower. Stand up as a means to reduce errors. Stand up so as to ensure that we are delivering the operational service that is expected. Stand up to shout out your passive resistance in support of your brethren. And if you become fatigued, ask for a break. If it gets denied conduct your operation in a safe and efficient manner. Stand for as long as you can stand it and when it becomes too much, promise that you’ll go another five minutes.

But, if you have an error, make sure you document that you were standing. Make sure you document that you were dress code compliant. Make sure that you document that you were on a combined position. Make sure that you document that you got zero help from the Front-Line Manager that was trying to shake off another CRU-ARTS induced trance back at the desk. Make sure that you document your overtime, time on position, lousy breaks, denied leave and your fear of being counseled for speaking up. Give them the truth and get a copy. The truth shall be the only thing that sets us free.

Moving on up?

I may be shutting down as I have been approached by the gang at www.faafollies.com to join their staff. The agreement here is mutual since they can get me to 1000 hits per day and I might be able to get them back to a slam a day on the FAA. I'm registered there as "Stranger Than Fiction," because that is what the truth is. Check back in week to see if I'm too abrasive or combative for them.

Delays

Delays are a funny thing. Funny, odd, not funny, ha-ha. Delays, or rather on-time gate arrivals, are one of the performance metrics that the ATO/FAA use to justify the phony-baloney yearly bonuses paid out to those members of the higher skill set (AKA non-controllers). BTW, ATO is the Air Traffic Organization since I think this may be the first mention of this entire layer of bullbleep, managerial over-redundancy. Trust me, the ATO has nothing to do with getting you there on time but we're getting off course here.

The evening shift for August 29, 2007. The weather was reasonably cooperative. You can check out the next days report (8/30/07)at www.ato.faa.gov.

107 delays for Newark Airport. 251 delays for the New York TRACON. But in the midst of all of this carnage some interesting numbers between the hours of 1800 to 2100 local. A flight from SEA to EWR arrived 14 minutes early. SAN, 12 minutes. DEN, 19 minutes. CUN, 23. MEX, 10. MCI, 31. MSY, 15. ANU, 27. ORD, 13. RSW, 16. FLL, 15. OMA, 19. ORD, 41. SDF, 42. BNA, 9. MSP, 11. PVD, 29. CVG, 9. MKE, 18. BUF, 15. CLE, 20. ROC, 30. DCA, 24. BHM, 20. DTW, 11. ZRH, 45. YQB, 14. RIC, 44. ORF, 37. TPA, 29. CLT, 32. FLL, 31. IAD, 48. DAY, 21. MHT, 21. ALB, 40. YUL, 23. FLL, 21. AVL, 33. CMH, 25. DTW, 29. YUL, 19. ATL, 41. ATL, 8. PBI, 27. RDU, 14. BGR, 22. BWI, 37. BOS, 26. BDA, 51. TPA, 12. CVG, 20. SAV, 14. CHS, 34. PVD, 39. GRR, 8. CAE, 17. CLE, 32. BTV, 18. ROC, 34. All the arrival information is coutesy www.flightstats.com. I did leave out a few since arriving 5 minutes early is no big accomplishment.

I hope that no one out there is clinging to the belief that any of these planes took off early. With the exception of a few charter flights, that's never going to happen just based upon the fact that 90% of passengers will still be cramming luggage into the overhead 5 minutes after the door gets closed.

The question becomes did these aircraft arrive early? The answer, sadly, is no. The airlines routinely fudge arrival times based upon the time your flight usually arrives. 37 minutes early from Baltimore to Newark? You'd need to be on the Concorde with the Local Controller in Baltimore clearing you for a visual approach at Newark as you break every rule in the book about airspeed below 10,000 feet.

I'd love to tell you that these "early" arrivals were based upon the superior skills of the tower, approach and center controllers. Heck, I'd even eat crow and tell you that the FAA's Command Center was due a round of applause for a job well done. If only any of it were true. The funny, yet sad, thing about it is that the airlines are forced into a position where they have to lie to passengers about arrival times.

BWI to EWR? 186 miles by car on Yahoo! 186 miles at 300 MPH? (Hey, it's too darned late for me to convert to knots and nautical miles.) 37 MINUTES! Now go to www.continental.com and pretend you're going to buy a ticket. BWI to EWR could take 1 hour and 5 minutes, 1 hour and 23, or 1 hour and 37. 3 flights, 3 different times en route. THEY'RE ALL THE SAME DISTANCE!

Why the charade? Could the airlines just be convoluting the truth as a means of decreasing passenger complaints? Somewhat. The real reason is to give the passenger a reasonable expectation of when they will land. The downside here is that the airlines aren't willing to take a stand with arrival times as a means of holding the FAA accountable. The airlines are giving the FAA a window of more than 60 minutes during which to get that plane in. If the FAA can't deliver that last flight from BWI to EWR in 1 hour and 51 minutes, then it becomes a delay.

The truth, however, is 5 minutes from gate to runway, 40 (maybe 45) minutes in the air, and another 5 minutes from runway to gate. Don't accept the lie that is being presented to you. Don't be a part of some twisted plot to guarantee bonuses to no-loads based upon faulty information. The ATO is under-reporting delays as part of It's own self-promotion, and that's without the help of their soiled concubines. The airlines are just along for whatever cab fare is left on the night stand on the morning after.

User Fees, Part 1

My "good" friend James C. May, President of the ATA, is back to slinging his usual bleep as he continues to kiss up to the powers that be at the FAA. Mr. May got a little face time from the Chicago Tribune today:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0821ledeletteraug21,0,7531227.story

Just for fun, let's take all of the propaganda as the truth.

First we'll start with today's fees. You can go to http://www.smartskies.org/LearningCenter/faa_funding/calculator.htm and play with varying departure and arrival points and a few aircraft types. I chose Boston to Los Angeles. An A-320 pays $2,163 in fees. A charter flight in a C750 would pay $2,364. The same C750 being used as a corporate flight would be charged $324. Disparity right? Mmmmmm-maybe not.

If the A-320 has been configured for the typical two-class seating, it will hold 150 passengers. That's $14.42 for each passenger, each "user" of the system. The C750 can seat 12 cramped passengers or 8 in the "double club" arrangement. $197+ per passenger on the charter flight. $324 flat rate on the corporate flight be it 1 person or 12. Even the 12 would be hit for a $27 charge.

Our "friend" would like Congress to believe that the airlines are being driven into insolvency by the current fee system. But isn't this cost merely passed on to the customer? And when these costs become too high for the passenger the ATA's irresponsible members will be lining up outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue asking for another bailout. Jimmy claims that airlines pay 92% of the fees, corporate traffic pays the other 8%. Last time I checked, UPS, FEDEX and DHL weren't airlines.

Jimmy, if you want things to be equitable, change the plan and go after those HEAVY DC10s with no passengers. Support volume based fees for each airport which are relative to capacity issues related to arrival and departure times. One flat fee for the route flown and a passenger fee for each body. This will force the airlines to "rebaseline" (as they say in the FAA) costs and schedules. Aircraft can fly at any time of the day. If you want to support $59 from JFK to MIA, do it at 2AM, not 10AM. If you want to complain about 6 hour delays from EWR to DEN, make sure that the packages feel the same pain. Go chase that heavy jet that is wasting two departure or arrival slots with nothing but packages from QVC, E-bay and smiling Bob. But for the sake of everyone's sanity, quit regurgitating the false statistics spouted by Marion Blakey and the FAA.

Remember the hierarchy; lies, damned lies and statistics.

Tough Bleep

Hey, this blog thing is hard. Work, home repairs and then this, it's tough to come up with new stuff to report to the taxpayer. Even more difficult when the guilty are told to leave me (you) alone.

Even though the FAA has backed off in It's attack on me, they still continue to rake the taxpayer over the coals with mispent monies based upon failed policies and practices. Case in point...

Front Line Managers (FLMS) are assigned to watch the operation during the midnight shift at the New York TRACON (N90). An FLM was assigned to watch the shift on the wee-early hours of Agust 19th. The only problem was that said FLM had never been trained to watch the entire operation. Said FLM had no idea what to do in the event of an accident nor did he (yes, a male) have any idea about area staffing. So what did the FAA do? The answer in a moment.

The FAA, as a part of It's re-establishing the iron boot of Management's rights, imposed the practice of changing air traffic controller's shifts, with minimal notice, to satisfy operational necessity. This means that you could make plans a month in advance only to have them interrupted with 10 hours of advance notice because you were needed to cover a short shift. The 10 hours is actually a gracious claim, since the imposed rules require ZERO notice. Imagine reservations with your wife for a fancy restaraunt and being told that you need to come back and work a midnight shift (11pm to 7 am).

FAA management decided that It would not impose the same conditions on It's FLMs. They simply decided that they would assign ANOTHER FLM overtime to train the assigned FLM how to handle the shift in question. Think about that. 1 day's pay for the assigned FLM. 1.5 days pay for the FLM that was expected to train the first FLM. 10% additional pay for both (night differential) up until 0600. All of this adds up to over 3.2 times the amount of money that should have been paid for this particular shift. Maybe FLM B gets night differential since his assignment was made before the beginning of the administrative work week. Funny how that works out.

The sad thing is that the FAA had over a year to train the inexperienced FLM on the midnight procedure. The FAA controls the scheduling of the inexperienced FLM. The FAA had more than 50 ways to leave your lover, meaning that there is a multitude of ways for the training to have been accomplished without overtime and another multitude of ways to staff the shift in question.

If I wrote that this practice cost the FAA over $2500 would you be upset? If I attached any value to this gross mismangement, how many infractions would be enough to piss you off? Once is enough, and the responsible parties must be held accountable.

Hello, hotline@oig.faa.gov. Don't hold your breathe, I've been waiting 3 weeks for an answer on the FAAMA convention.

The Point

I was sitting and working next to a not-fully-certified controller the other night and we got to talking about EVERYTHING that is going on. This wasn't the normal "why do you insist on fighting" conversation, this was more like "why do you need ME to keep fighting?"

This trainee was asking because no matter what he/she (from now on IT) did, IT was already at the high end of what would be interpreted as IT's payband. IT had already checked out in another area and was only in training, in my area, because of the FAA's failure to adequately staff every area in the facility. IT was forced to transfer because of a staffing imbalance, a staffing imbalance caused by mismanagement. IT was forced into another area. IT's seniority dropped from 40 to 50 because of the size of the new area. IT had to go from being fully certified to being certified on nothing because of an FAA decision. The saddest part of all of this is that after IT got transferred to the new, more difficult, area, a handful of newly hired trainees (zero experience anywhere) were placed into his old area. None of them made it, but that is another story.

IT asked me what the point was. I told IT that financially, it didn't really matter. If IT failed to certify there was a "promise" on the table that IT could go back to the old area. We haven't had to test this promise yet. I did tell IT that there were ramifications for both IT and every other trainee that followed IT. You see, IT has checked out on a few positions and has been used for staffing coverage ever since. IT gets very little training now, even though IT is less than 50% qualified. Another IT got pregnant (obviously female) and wound up with 3 hours of training a month after she was less than 25% qualified. The point is that the FAA can extract 100% work for less than 100% pay. Naturally, we have to drag this bastardization of policy out beyond reasonable limits because the FAA is acting unreasonably.

Tomorrows ITs will make the mistake of quickly getting certified on a position, a position they will used to staff as post PATCO retirements continue to mount. 100% work for 25% pay. Eventually these people will need to be trained on additional positions because the number of fully-certified personnel continues to drop. So IT finally gets more training, but IT also has been added to the TRAINER ranks so as to train even more new hires on the position(s) IT has already been certified on. 100% work for 50% pay, plus training differential because more trainers have retired. The FAA gets forced again a few years later to continue IT's training as the number of people that can work every position continues to plummet. 100% work and 75% pay.

There's still a problem though. The fully certified number has dropped to 10 people, out of 50. The FAA is saving money hand over fist because of the use of ITs to cover for staffing. The lucky 10 can't get leave because 1.4 of them are off on any given day, 2 work the midnight shift, 1 works a 6 to 2, 1 or 2 work 7 to 3, a 1 to 9 and 2 on the 3 to 11. Wait, that's wrong because of the 10, 7 are off on Saturday and Sunday (balanced schedule). Mental note to self: don't fly on the weekends three years from now. Gosh this gets worse as it gets dragged out.

Hopefully you've grasped that the majority of air traffic control duties will eventually be accomplished by less than fully qualified personnel. The National Air Traffic Controller's Association (NATCA) couldn't agree to a two-tiered pay system. That was the major hangup over the last contract negotiations. NATCA certainly can't agree to a four-tiered pay system, the system that is being implemented as you read this, by the FAA.

Look out the window next time you fly. The amount of air traffic is increasing. The amount of air traffic controllers isn't. The FAA is treating their personnel like IT. The point is that you, and your safety, may someday need a fully certified controller and you might only have IT to turn to. NATCA needs to fix this now because IT could get dangerous.

2 people I'd like to meet

Based upon the recent press coverage of the problems associated with the price of your safety, I can safely say that there's 2 people I'd like to meet.

First, there's J. Adrian Stanley, a reporter for the Colorado Springs Independent. The CSI is a weekly publication that's probably available for free to anyone that cares to pick it up. J. put out three articles last week but I think that hyperlinking two will suffice.

www.csindy.com/csindy/2007-08-02/cover.html

Sorry about the forced cut and paste, I'm still trying to figure out this "insert link" button. Anyhoo, the article is pretty much just ANOTHER rehash of the current sad state of affairs. J. then gets in another shot in the Long Story Short column.

www.csindy.com/csindy/2007-08-02/longstoryshort.html

It's amazing that with all the Agency spin doctors, nobody could take an hour to respond to his questions. I guess the weekly, local rag isn't legitimate enough for the likes of Laura Brown. Thank you Mr. Stanley for printing the truth and asking the hard questions. There's a drink waiting for you here, let's make it a Long Island Ice-Tea.

The other guy is James C. May, President of the Air Transport Association. I couldn't get a link but here is a copy of his article written for USA Today on or about August 8, 2007.

USA TODAY: Fix air traffic services; Congestion pricing raises costs but doesn't solve the problems.
By: James C. May
James C. May is president and CEO of the Air Transport Association, the trade group for major U.S. passenger and cargo airlines.



Record airline load factors and the growing number of flights are testimony to the strength of consumer demand for competitively priced air transportation. Airlines are in the business of responding to these market signals to meet the public's expectations for services. In short, just as anticipated, airline deregulation has produced a variety of airline services and vigorous price competition.

Unfortunately, there are some who would prefer to respond to the challenges of this marketplace success by scaling back consumer benefits. They would impose fees and regulatory constraints that simply mask the government's failure to provide the essential air traffic control (ATC) services we all pay for. Adding $50 to a passenger ticket through congestion pricing or reducing service to small communities that rely on regional jet service, they say, is the only solution to market demands. That is the wrong approach.

It is indisputable that demand at the New York area airports is exceptionally strong, and that customer demand is contributing to air traffic delays. The easy solution is, as noted, to slap a congestion price on passengers. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't fix the problem; it only makes it more expensive to fly. Our response? Fix the problem, don't hide it.

How?
*First, ensure that operations at the New York airports meet the hourly rates the Federal Aviation Administration says they can handle safely. This well-documented reduction in ATC operational productivity must be corrected.

*Second, accelerate the airspace redesign project for the New York-Philadelphia region, which promises to reduce delays by as much as 20%.

*Third, give commercial flights a higher priority than other system users to protect schedule integrity; the passengers and airlines that fund more than 90% of the costs of air traffic services deserve nothing less.

*Fourth, accelerate the rollout of existing technologies that provide meaningful capacity and operational improvements -- including enhancements known as Area Navigation and Required Navigational Performance -- and improve surveillance systems to better manage airplanes on the ground and enhance safety.

These measures are just a start on what can be done if we reject the urge to hide the problem and get on with the necessary solutions.

Finally, in the long run, we must accelerate the transformation of the ATC system to a modern, satellite-based system with all of the benefits a net-centric system provides: more airways, more capacity and enhanced safety. The FAA target date of 2015 must be brought forward. Why not 2010?

Give the FAA the tools it needs to provide the essential ATC services this country demands instead of hiding the problem.

I gave you the whole enchilada there but let's concentrate on this quote:

"*First, ensure that operations at the New York airports meet the hourly rates the Federal Aviation Administration says they can handle safely. This well-documented reduction in ATC operational productivity must be corrected."

Great, another air-traffic genius with no credibility. Just toss your assertions out there Jimmy. If it looks like bleep, smells like bleep and tastes like bleep, it must be bleep. If the air traffic controllers in New York (and Newark) can't deliver upon the FAA's false promises, make the charge tough guy. You're accusing controllers of a slow-down. You're taking baseless promises from the FAA and throwing them into the collective faces of the people that EXECUTE the safest airspace system in the world. Notice it doesn't say the people that RUN the safest airspace system in the world. The people that are running this show hide underneath their desks everyday, until a media opportunity arises, praying that everything they've done doesn't result in a loss of life.

Two representatives from MITRE sat across the table from me 8 years ago and swore up and down, upon a stack of 7110s, that Newark Liberty International could ONLY handle 36 arrivals an hour, yet we are constantly expected to put 40 planes on the pavement before an overflow is considered. The numbers, naturally, magically changed, not based upon new technology, not based upon a better system and not based upon a new-found loyalty to the FAA from It's employees. The numbers got changed because "those that don't know" are now the ones in charge. And keep this in mind, NATCA super-savior, former FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, is now on the executive board for MITRE.

I did find a link for the wisdom of one James C. May:

www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-07-02-holiday-travel_n.htm

Save the time, here's the quote:

The Air Transport Association (ATA), the Washington trade group for large carriers, called on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to temporarily limit private business jet traffic into New York to help unravel the nation's most congested airspace. On Saturday, for example, more than one-third of the nation's air traffic delays resulted from slowdowns in the New York area, the ATA said. Airlines have been forced to cancel hundreds of flights during the busy holiday week.

"The New York City metropolitan-area airspace is completely saturated and near gridlock," said ATA President James May.

Again, speak not of what you don't know. If you want to accuse me and my brethren of a slowdown, say the freaking words. Do it now, while I can still find another job before the next tuition payment. It's ridiculous that so many accusations can be made which would get me fired and my Union decertified, yet I still have to show up for work tomorrow.

Sorry Jimmy, no drink for you, unless you're interested in a nice big mug of STFU.

Update, Serious, Part 1

I blogged last month about the practice of not paying controllers night differential for overtime work. We got an update this past week that the practice will be stopped, pending an official review from headquarters. Sit back down and put the champagne back in the fridge, or vice versa. When headquarters gets a full review of this they'll have two options. They can admit they were wrong and promise to never do it again and take the appropriate personnel action (removal) against the parties responsible, or they can adopt this as the new standard practice and award the "genius" that came up with the policy. Which way do you think the bean-counters will go? Hence the forboding title here because a second update is most likely in the offing.

The following is from FAA Order 3550.10:

g. Regularly Scheduled. Work must be scheduled in advance of the administrative workweek in order to be considered regularly scheduled. If it is determined that work should have been scheduled in advance; e.g., the supervisor knew in advance of the administrative workweek that the work would be required, but he/she did not schedule the work, it is considered regularly scheduled.

So, if the supervisor, be he/her thumb hiding in some orifice, or behind you with hands in pockets, knew in advance that the work would be required, but didn't take action...THE RULE SAYS YOU SHOULD BE PAID.

FAAMA III

In a summer movie season which has already given you Ocean's Thirteen, Spider-man 3, Shrek the 3rd, Pirates, Jason Bourne and Rush Hour, I would feel neglectful if I didn't crank out what is affectionately known as "Fayma, Aye-yi-yi."

So the FAAMA Convention, in Las Vegas, will contain "official" training as part of it's agenda. (I'm sorry, the words Vegas, convention and training should NEVER be used in the same sentence.) Not enough to be legit. No official FAA, DOT or OPM course complete with the required course number. For the record, I don't know any of the people that will be speaking in Vegas. I may have signed a "thou shalt not falsify government documents" memo from Ms. Gibson. My only recourse was the internet.

Fred Pryor seminars will go first. "The Art of Working with People" and "The Productivity Superconference" are the scheduled training lessons. I perused the list of courses available at www.pryor.com and came across a few that might actually be beneficial. Dealing with difficult people, how to deal with unacceptable employee behavior and mistake free grammar and proof-reading. Then I came to the Women's training tab. Wow, here's a company that has their own section of topics designed to help the 21st century female break through the glass ceilings of the business world. There's leadership and team-building skills for women, the outstanding receptionist (morning) and the outstanding receptionist (afternoon). Screech! Hold it, time out, flag on the play, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Leadership and team-building FOR WOMEN? Is that different than the leadership and team-building seminar you have for men? Two seminars in the "Women's" area for being a receptionist? Why not finish YOUR trilogy with "The Outstanding Receptionist (Evening)." Heck if you're going to stereotype groups and demean based upon gender, you might as well finish what you start.

Ventris Gibson will be working on her "Generations" stand up routine. "Generations" is horribly explained at: http://www.faama.org/files/convention/People_Are_Our_Strength.pdf.
John Carr got wind of her warm-up sessions: http://themainbang.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/fun-with-marion.html.
Generations will be celebrating (snicker) the diversity of workforce with respect (giggle) to age. Kind of like Walter Cronkite meets Jon Stewart. (LOL) This wasn't the first choice for naming this, it was originally going to be called, "How to get these damned kids to do 100% work for 70% pay." (ROFLMFAO!) That title was scrapped because after the FAA kills off the higher paid employees, no one will be allowed to tell the younger people about second tier payscales. Opinions regarding Ms. Gibson range from not being popular with her employees:

http://flightservicesigmet.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html

http://www.faafollies.com/?m=200704

to being popular with quasi-religious business consultants:

http://www.nationalimageinc.org/pdf/keynotespeakers1.pdf. Hmmm, a public servant as a keynote speaker. I'm sure someone would have chimed in if she had taken a fee.

Finally, Tim Steed and Steed Communications. From www.timsteed.com:

Tim Steed is one of the most dynamic and versatile Christian speakers in the country. His entertaining Christian seminars and speeches are humorous, compelling, and thought-provoking. And they are always geared towards inspiring others so that they become motivated to live the life they are called to live.

As a Christian comedian, his hilarious interactive presentations offer not just standup comedy, but spiritual guidance and encouragement for people of all ages. His mission is to empower Christians to fulfill their potential, and equip them with the necessary tools to do so while making them laugh as hard as they can.

I'm sure this guy has a non-secular version of his act. But then again, this is a FAAMA convention. Maybe non-Christians have the same standing as Women. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

Religion, classism and prejudice are re-inventing themselves and infiltrating the FAA.

Sun AND Fun with FAAMA

The FAAMA will be holding it's "convention" at the Flamingo in Las Vegas from September 17th through the 20th. Ther term convention is dubious at best because the event has been re-classified by the FAA as a training event. Read the letter authorizing funding and attendance at:

http://www.faama.org/files/convention/FAAMA2007.pdf

Some highlights:

"The conference is a training event since over half of the schedule consists of training activities."

"Managers may, at their discretion, approve attendance and funding for the entire conference as they would for any training."

Paragraph #3 goes on to explain that if funding isn't available for the FAA to cover the whole trip, the employee is to be afforded the government rate for room and ride but no airplane tickets. Paragraph #4 explains how they weaseled this into being considered official training, "FAAMA must ensure that attendees are informed regarding training content, the subject matter (including all handouts) and instructional techniques comply with Congressional restrictions, that end-of-course evaluations are completed, and that summary evaluations are provided to this office."

Let's start with over half of the schedule. You can take my word or you can peruse the agenda at:

http://www.faama.org/files/convention/FAAMA%20Agenda%202007.pdf

Hmmm, no training on Monday. 6+15 on Tuesday, 4+35 on Wednesday and 3+15 on Thursday. 14 hours and 5 minutes of training. Doesn't quite seem to stand up as "over half" of the 32 hours that the conference room was booked for. Maybe Monday doesn't count.

Approve attendance and funding. Now what Manager wouldn't approve that, after all this is the FAAMA. The Manager could already be a member or this could be his/her fast track into being asked to join. Or maybe the Death's Head Squad thinks it can't be ignored. Read their mission statement (http://faama.org/pages/about_us/page_0.php):

Our mission is to promote excellence in public service. We represent all levels of management in the Federal Aviation Administration`s lines of business. At the same time, we provide an avenue for managers and supervisors to protect their interests in the political arena.

FAAMA has exercised its political power in Congress to effect positive change for our agency and our members. The ability to be heard on Capitol Hill is important for two main reasons:


1. FAAMA , with its experience and expertise, plays an important role in congressional testimony relating to managers and supervisors, and

2. Top agency managers are more likely to listen to FAAMA because they know the key members of Congress are listening to us.


FAAMA is dedicating its efforts to organize and build its political power to promote excellence in public service.

Is THAT why Darlene M. Freeman, Chief Learning Officer of the FAA, determined that this counts as training? Is that why she decided that taxpayer funds could be used? Did you notice that she explains every requirement as to what people need to come home with in order to justify the decision? Does anybody care that Friday will count as a Travel Day (AKA No work, no leave, no problem) for these Sin City revellers as they return to their facilities?

It's your money paying for this, you might as well know what you're getting. But seriously, with the weenie quotient running so high on the Strip that week, it might be a good time to book a flight, just don't fly out of Vegas on Friday, there may be delays because all the Agency hot shots will be pulling strings to get their flight airborn.

Fun with the FAAMA

The Federal Aviation Administration Manager's Association (FAAMA), despite it's fancy title and acronym is nothing more than a club for the old-boys network that is running the FAA. It's kind of like a self-appointed Gestapo unit if you were to liken FAA Management to the SS. FAAMA has done nothing except goose-step along in-line in it's opposition to the charges of the National Air Traffic Controller's Association (NATCA) with regards to bad-faith negotiating and imposed work rules.

Steve Baker, FAAMA President, backs this up in his Summer 2007 report:

Contract Update

There continues to be a buzz about the 2006 contract with the air traffic controller’s union. Our position has not changed. The process was followed to the letter. Just because the outcome was not what the union wants does not mean they are entitled to a “an do-over”. If the parties do not like the process, then work in a constructive manner to change the process for future negotiations. Already a year into the current contract, we have four years to get a process that works for labor and the agency. Let’s work to get it right.

Nice guy, you can just hear the sincerity dripping out of your monitor when you read that last sentence. Anyway, that's just to set the stage for where the parties are in this disagreement. Mr. Baker is naturally going to do what he has to to protect his and his organization's best interest. I can't begrudge anyone from doing that. In the same Summer Report he outlines their agenda with respect to the futre of the FAA:

Legislative

We have secured language in the FAA Re-Authorization bill on the House side (HR 2881) that will require a full and complete assessment of supervisory staffing needs for Air Traffic. Hopefully, the study will finally expose the negative impact that staffing to a baseless ratio (8 to 1) has on our product. It is not about the ratio, it is about the function and the need for proper oversight in our facilities. We will continue to work towards proper oversight in our facilities, whether they be air traffic, tech ops, human relations, airports, etc.

"Staffing to a baseless ratio?" You mean like the way the FAA has cut controller staffing based upon post 9/11 traffic? Clearly an example of, "do as I say, not as I do." You know, if you just took the word supervisory out of the above, the quote could be attributed to any NATCA Representative, especially if oversight was replaced with staffing. "The need for proper oversight in our facilities?" As it is presented there one would think that performance was lax just because there aren't enough guards in the towers. Chest thumping at it's finest. The National Airspace System (NAS) did just fine over the last 10 years by using Controllers, as in Controller-in-Charge, to provide necessary "oversight" when a Supervisor wasn't around.

Mr. Baker has done a good job in getting those supervisory ranks filled over the past two years in his effort just to get down to that "baseless ratio." He's hoping that whatever study gets done, most likely with tainted data, will justify even more oversight from more people that are only too happy to run away from having to work airplanes everyday for a living.

More highly paid baby-sitters over-seeing an already disenfranchised workforce. Go read the Employee Attitude Survey results for 2006 at www.faa.gov. More iron boots on the necks of the people that try to make the NAS work day after day and night after night. More letters of reprimand and false accusations of illegal slow-downs and work stoppages.

And the two worst years for on-time flights in the history of aviation. Coincidence? That's for you to decide but the fun with FAAMA is just starting.

Capacity

What is a reasonable time to wait? You bought your tickets, you rented a car, you booked a room, you showed up two hours early so you can get through security sans shoes, belt and watch, yet what is reasonable? Even with a "Passenger Bill of Rights," how long is to long and what the bleep is a $50 voucher going to do for you today?

The FAA, for lack of a better term, is in bed with the airlines; however, they are nothing more than lying whores in such a relationship. The FAA has promised the airlines that It will increase capacity, by hook or by crook, via any means necessary. The light at the end of the tunnel is NexGen. NexGen, or the next generation of air traffic control will combine global positioning (GPS) precision, with non-procedural weather avoidance, airspace redesign, reduced separation and Flight Management System (FMS) routing. All of which is fine and dandy in a simulation but in the real world...

GPS may be more accurate than the antiquated radar systems currently used. The system is asking you to have faith in a satellite that is vulnerable to to solar flares and meteorites.

Dynamic weather avoidance involves getting from point A to point B via re-routing over point C even though C is being used by someone else. Suppose, for instance that arrivals for Newark routinely crossed over Philadelphia, and arrivals for Kennedy crossed over Atlantic City. The Laguardia arrivals, naturally go somewhere in the middle. If Atlantic City is involved in a thunderstorm, we should just be able to shift everyone to the left, by 30 miles or so, right? Wrong. That airspace is already clogged with more Laguardia and Newark arrivals coming from Chicago airspace. Want to move them? Then you impact the Chicago to Kennedy routes. Also, don't forget the smaller airports and their arrival routes as well as the departure fixes going the other way. The solution here is to change the airspace so that noone gets caught with their pants down because of weather.

Which then leads you to airspace redesign. This is also known as fitting 10 lbs. of crap into a 5 lb. bag. Divergent departure headings that automatically separate aircraft after lift-off. Departure headings which suddenly impact you as a new departure route threatens to rip the roof off of house in places that never dealt with aircraft before. This does little to reduce the arrival demand for the airport but for those aircraft that were fortunate to have been in place (on-time) earlier, they can depart with little delay. Again, all fine and dandy, until somebody doesn't get switched to the next controller in time, or the controller gets everyone at the same time. No problem, the FAA can fix that too.

Reduced separation. See the earlier blog on Proximity Events for more information. My point is that when legal separation reduces from 3 miles to 2 miles, would you rather be a trailing aircraft or one that is head-on? This is a classic set-up move. The perceived intent is that separation errors will decrease, thus making the National Airspace System a safer place and guaranteeing bonuses for the cronies that never donned a headset. However with the ever increasing need to overload that 5 lb. bag, the controllers will attempt to work their magic so as to avoid the penultimate charge of engaging in a slow-down.

The FAA is naturally introducing Flight Management procedures which reduce the need for controllers to interact until separation resolution becomes necessary. They've started ONE standardized arrival into Newark. There are 9 arrival routings into Newark. Anyone care to bet on the odds that you never need to be vectored to land? Even if they automate all 9, is a computer going to handle your arrival or will there be a controller there to break the tie? And 3 ties, and 4, and 5? Breaking one tie could have a ripple effect that lasts for hours.

Hours. The amount of time you spend waiting. Hours you spend holding on the ground or in the air because the FAA can't deliver upon It's promise of increased capacity. What is a reasonable time to wait?

Can you wait 30 years? That's about how long it should take the child of a current air traffic controller to invent the transporter.

Lessons from Memphis

Memphis Airport USED to have a procedure where Aircraft A landed on a non intersecting runway underneath the flightpath of Aircraft B. One day, Aircraft A, due to an unsafe gear indication, decided that attempting to land may not be in its best interest and requested to go-around. Aircraft A was advised to "keep it low" as there was traffic (Aircraft B) lined up and cleared for the crossing runway. The FAA vowed to never let such a situation happen again. Welcome to Newark Liberty International, land of the surreal.

As part of an FAA-driven capacity issue, planes are cleared for an approach to Runway 29 while aircraft land and depart the parallel runways of 4L and 4R. The problem is that there isn't an approach to Runway 29. The Runway 29 traffic comes in from the west of Newark Airport and crosses over the Runway 4R final at 1500 feet as it circles around the Statue of Liberty. It's all fine and dandy until, as was the case in Memphis, somebody decides that they need to go around. Even if you believe the FAA lies that this is 99.9% safe, would you rather be on Aircraft #999 or Aircraft #1000? The 99.9% number has no basis in fact as being safe and I do have to protect myself from any charge of spreading false information. But I think you get the idea.

You are not just another piece of meat, delivered via QVC to NYC, awaiting your final date with the propane-fueled fires of hell. You do deserve adequate RADAR separation long before you are subjected to the last ditch effort that is visual separation. It may already be too late.

Proximity Events

The FAA has reclassified separation standards between 2 airplanes by labeling situations where 90% of applicable separation standards are maintained as a proximity event. This accomplishes absolutely nothing when concerns about safety are addressed. Yes, an Air Traffic Controller will not be dragged through the mud and displayed with his/her Scarlet Letter attached when they can hold the line at 90%, but the simple fact remains that separation and safety were compromised.

Decades ago, the separation standard was debated and defined based upon equipment tolerances and the performance characteristics of the aircraft of the day. As aircraft got faster, and radar reliability remained the same, these numbers stood as the requirement of success and failure as a Controller. It was inevitable that someday, someone would figure out that 4 miles would work just as well as 5 miles did, and 2 as well as 3. The goal was, and always will be, no mid-airs.

The FAA has decided that a 3 mile separation standard could be reduced by 10%, to 2.7 miles without having to charge a Controller with an Operational Error (AKA OOPSIE). They will tell you that safety was never compromised. They will tell you that even violating that on approach to your favorite airport is nothing more than a compression error. What they won't tell the passenger or congress is that in a head on situation, at a 500 knot closure rate, they've decreased the margin of safety. It's slight but it is still decreased. 500 knots is roughly 8.3 miles a minute, it's over 0.125 miles a second. An eighth of a mile a second. In 8 seconds, you will lose a mile of separation. Think about that. It takes me 5 seconds to tell an aircraft what to do. On their best day, it takes a pilot .75 seconds to decipher the instruction, 2 seconds to take the corrective action and another 3 to 5 seconds for it to be visible as a means of providing separation. Those numbers are the best case scenario.

Someday, the person that advocated the big sky theory of separation will recant, and head on separation standards will be different than the "hell he can't catch them" standards of aircraft following one another. Until then, may all your near mid-air collisions be in-trail and not head on.