I totally understand Hal, I'm just thankful this site is here. I write, call and e-mail my state Representatives regularly about specific topics an legislature. I'm almost sure that when my intended victim is handed the phone or sent the e-mail they hear, Sir, it's that Bob fellow again !
Bob
I appreciate Hal stepping in. My point was exactly as has been stated--attack the idea of privatization without the ad hominem attacks on individual politicians. We may have our views on individuals (and I sure do), but antagonizing individuals isn't a productive way of handling it.
The biggest argument against adopting Canada's methodology is that Canada doesn't have nearly the air traffic that the continental US has. It's a bit like comparing onions and oranges--both are spherical, but the comparison fails thereafter. With the possible exception of the area around Toronto, even the busiest of Canada's airspace is pretty quiet by comparison to US airspace. They don't have the multiple Class B type of traffic that the US has in many different areas, especially in the northeast and west coast, but also in the middle of the country with places like Chicago and Cleveland and in the south with places like Atlanta and Dallas. So while Dorothy Robyn's testimony may make sense in the abstract, it really is inapplicable.
To say that one doesn't use ATC isn't quite true for most pilots. ATC isn't just IFR. Most pilots like the comfort of going on their cross country trips with flight following backing them; that's ATC. Most pilots can't avoid Class C and D airports entirely; that's ATC. All pilots are required to be fully informed about all of the elements applicable to their flights; much of that information comes from ATC. If a pilot needs to know whether a MOA or other special use airspace is hot, that information comes from ATC. Unfortunately, many of us or our friends or family will need the services of air evacuation/ambulances in our lives; those depend on ATC for their necessary priority handling. Most of us buy many things online these days; UPS, FedEx, Walmart, and all of the other purveyors of online goods require ATC services to serve their customers.
Of the roughly 6500 public use airports in the country, a little more than half are part of the National Airspace System. Roughly 20% of those have towers; the rest are non-controlled. But all that are in the NAS have some sort of instrument approach, and many that aren't in the NAS have instrument approaches; that's all handled by ATC.
So although an individual pilot may conceivably avoid any contact with ATC, the vast majority of pilots do not and cannot. Paraphrasing Ben Franklin's quote again, we must all hang together, or we will hang separately. None of us can afford to say, "it won't apply to me, so do whatever you want".
To my way of thinking, ATC is and should remain a governmental function, whether some parts of it are privatized (such as contract towers) or not. The FAA is not the most efficient organization in the world, not by a long shot. But pulling ATC out of the FAA isn't going to be the panacea that some think, and I fully believe that it will set back the progress that is being made toward improving ATC functions.
Cary
"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth...,
put out my hand and touched the face of God." J.G. Magee
Less than 10% of public use airports have towers. More than half of them are already contract towers.
See here: http://aireform.com/airports-atc/faa...ts-512-towers/
Why does Walla Walla Washington with 68 operations a day need a tower at all?
Oooh, something is really wonky with that database.
Tuscaloosa - my home airfield - is a ghost town except for race weekends, which is why they only have a tower during that time. According to that list, my tumbleweed airport is just less than half as busy as Oshkosh.
If there are three "daily ops" in any given day outside of race weekends we're just covered over with traffic by our estimation.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Frank I must agree. They list Springfield Capitol airport here in Illinois as having 105 opps a day. I spoke with the head controller at this airfield. He told me some days he is lucky to have 4 airplanes fly in. These numbers are skewed for a reason. IMHO.
Tony
To the best of my research, there was no change in the law, just a determination by the executive branch that ATC was not inherently governmental, and was then considered "Category A." The definition of Category A are activities which may be commercial but are exempt from private sector performance. Further, former Secretary Pinetta (who signed the attachment to Ms Robyn's testimony) said at that time (2002) that there was no intent to privatize ATC. Subsequent to the 2002 executive declaration, the Office of Management and Budget published OMB PL 11-01, which specifically addresses what is inherently governmental.Originally Posted by martymayes
Inherently governmental function, as defined in section 5 of the FederalActivities Inventory Reform Act, PublicLaw 105–270, means a function that isso intimately related to the publicinterest as to require performance byFederal Government employees.
(a) The term includes functions thatrequire either the exercise of discretionin applying Federal Governmentauthority or the making of valuejudgments in making decisions for theFederal Government...Aninherently governmental functioninvolves, among other things, theinterpretation and execution of the lawsof the United States so as —
...;
(3) to significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons;
Further, the same document describes "Critical functions": "Critical function means a functionthat is necessary to the agency beingable to effectively perform and maintaincontrol of its mission and operations." As described later, critical functions, "should be reserved for Federalemployees to ensure the department oragency maintains control of its missionand operations "
Now, despite Ms Robyn's attempt to say that the United States should follow the administrative model of foreign governments, it seems clear -- to me anyway -- that ATC certainly involves exercise of discretion in applying Federal Government authority, interpretation and execution of the laws of the United States, and that the decisions made by these controllers significantly affect the life, liberty, and property of private persons. Not to mention direction and control of military forces (another inherently governmental function.)
Even if the decision to make ATC "Category A" in 2002 was justified, it still falls under the definition of "critical function" and should be reserved to Federal employees...unless you think that ATC is NOT a core mission of the FAA.
I may not be a former political appointee with one or more Ph.D's, but the whole issue of contractor support to the U.S. government (and particularly DoD) is something I am intimately involved with on a day to day basis. Apart from the problems noted elsewhere in this string, I get very uncomfortable whenever an agency decides to fudge on the definition to make life easier for them or to avoid direct accountability for that operation.
Does the U.S. government need acquisition reform? Absolutely!!! Somehow, it seems to me, anyway, that just farming it out is not genuine reform.
While the FAA had no intent to privatize ATC (they told congress that in a letter), once GW Bush issued Executive Order 13264, the FAA was fully prepared to outsource FSS and they went forward with that plan.
OK so with 15 days left to fund the FAA and this bill is still active, I thought I would revive the thread to see if anyone has any update on where this stands. When is it scheduled for a vote? Is there a count of expected votes, and what is it? Is it party-line, or is there some opposition within the parties? My rep is a sponsor and I don't think I will get him to pull off the bill. Has anyone else had success talking to their rep.'s and getting them to vote no?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote