Five flight service stations to close

[alaskaflyer]

http://flightservicesigmet.blogspot.com/


Lockheed Martin is going to close some Flight Service Stations. During a telephone conference to facility managers yesterday, it was announced that five stations will close their doors on February 1st, 2009: Denver, Oakland, San Diego, Albuquerque and Macon. We all remember that the promised number of stations in the Lockheed Martin contracted Flight Service was 20. Today it is 18, and on next February 2nd it will be 13.

It was also announced that Flight Service is ‘over-staffed.’ Lockheed Martin will not say how many specialists there are. They will not say how many they want. Why either of these numbers should remain a secret is unexplained. But since a buy-out was announced a couple months ago, over 140 have left the ranks. We have no hard-and fast data, but we suspect that the current number of specialists is below 1000, likely closer to 900, and that is too many. Recall that in 2005, then-AOPA President Phil Boyer championed the LM contract over the internal government bid because one significant difference was that LM offered 1000 controllers, and the government bid offered ‘only’ 940. Snookered yet again, Mr. Boyer.

 

[sba55]

Hmmm....quite honestly, I can't blame LM.

AFSS are becoming less and less useful. I've used them one or twice in the past few years to file flight plans, but that's about it. Instead of focusing on AFSS, I'd like to see AOPA shift its focus completely to User Fees, Airports, and defeating that stupid ADS-B proposal.....

-Felix

 

[TMetzinger]

And based on what I see elsewhere in Gov't Contracting, I bet there's a "cut your price" directive in there coming from the Gov't.

 

[jtheune]

To tell the the truth all I use them for is to ask if there are any popup tfrs along my route of flight and to file ADIZ flight plans. I want that question asked and answered on tape. I get my weather from adds or duats and file on duats.

 

[mikea]

Hmmm....quite honestly, I can't blame LM.

AFSS are becoming less and less useful. I've used them one or twice in the past few years to file flight plans, but that's about it. Instead of focusing on AFSS, I'd like to see AOPA shift its focus completely to User Fees, Airports, and defeating that stupid ADS-B proposal.....

-Felix

And based on what I see elsewhere in Gov't Contracting, I bet there's a "cut your price" directive in there coming from the Gov't.

Outsource the huge task to a company that screws it up so totally that nobody uses it any more and so you can do what you wanted in the first place, which is not offer the service at all. (I know. They got better.)

When the Cubs put in lights they got the city night game ban repealed by saying they only wanted 18 night games, and they held to that for 4-5 years ...until they had 40 or more. Corporations have no problem setting long-term goals.

 

[TMetzinger]

I use Flight watch all the time, but rarely call the FSS itself.

 

[jmaynard]

I still call FSS for a briefing for every cross-country flight. I want a second opinion on the weather.

 

[Everskyward]

And based on what I see elsewhere in Gov't Contracting, I bet there's a "cut your price" directive in there coming from the Gov't.

Less spending is good, isn't it? I agree with Felix. I rarely use FSS any more. Usually it's only to open a flight plan at an uncontrolled field. Denver FSS is at my home airport. Years ago I visited them often because they were the only source for up to date satellite pictures. Even though I still drive by the building every day I don't think I've set foot in there in 10 years. They made it a lot more difficult to visit after the OKC bombing. I haven't even tried since 9/11.

 

[purdue1014]

Less spending is good, isn't it? I agree with Felix. I rarely use FSS any more. Usually it's only to open a flight plan at an uncontrolled field. Denver FSS is at my home airport. Years ago I visited them often because they were the only source for up to date satellite pictures. Even though I still drive by the building every day I don't think I've set foot in there in 10 years. They made it a lot more difficult to visit after the OKC bombing. I haven't even tried since 9/11.

FWIW, I've gotten in 3 times recently to the "local" FSS with no problems. Once, a briefer was coming on duty, and we walked in together. The other two times, I pushed the buzzer, said I was looking for a briefing, and they said come on in. The never checked IDs, etc...

 

[SkyHog]

Albuquerque?? Dammit. It finally affects me personally

They had just hired a bunch of folks like a year ago too here.

 

[SCCutler]

I also will be sad to lose ABQ, as they have been the source of some of my best briefings over the years. There is something substantial to be said for local knowledge.

 

[Anthony]

Corporations have no problem setting long-term goals.

Oh those evile corporations, made up of evile U.S. stockholders. Maybe the corporation is fullfilling a demand and trying to do it in the most efficient manner.

 

[ScottM]

Flight Service is still open?

I thought they went out of business a couple of years ago. I certianly have had little use for them in the past three years.

 

[ron22]

To tell the the truth all I use them for is to ask if there are any popup tfrs along my route of flight and to file ADIZ flight plans. I want that question asked and answered on tape. I get my weather from adds or duats and file on duats.

I call for the TFRs also. Like the idea it is on tape just incase.

 

[wsuffa]

Oh those evile corporations, made up of evile U.S. stockholders. Maybe the corporation is fullfilling a demand and trying to do it in the most efficient manner.

Outsourcing to India in 3.... 2.... 2....

 

[mikea]

Outsourcing to India in 3.... 2.... 2....

And ATC?

 

[gprellwitz]

I also will be sad to lose ABQ, as they have been the source of some of my best briefings over the years. There is something substantial to be said for local knowledge.

I had a really good briefing from ABQ a couple of weeks ago, and the briefer was even able to tell me about a fly-in at Sedona that I wasn't aware of. That's not going to happen when the briefer is half-way across the country!

 

[mikea]

Oh those evile corporations, made up of evile U.S. stockholders. Maybe the corporation is fullfilling a demand and trying to do it in the most efficient manner.

Maybe a government public safety service shouldn't be sent to be performed by a corporation that is naturally, chasing a profit.

 

[Everskyward]

Maybe a government public safety service shouldn't be sent to be performed by a corporation that is naturally, chasing a profit.

The government needs to be saving money too. Besides, it isn't as if you won't be able to get a briefing any more. You just won't be able to get one from someone sitting in a building in Denver, Oakland, San Diego, Albuquerque or Macon. I don't know if this is too political or not, but if we are going to cut spending are we only going to cut the other guy's spending and not have it cut from our own pet interests? Whether it's the government or LM, I think it is a reasonable cost/benefit decision. If people are using FSS less and less because they are going to other methods of self-briefing, we don't need as many FSSs as we did before.

 

[Anthony]

Maybe a government public safety service shouldn't be sent to be performed by a corporation that is naturally, chasing a profit.

I believe that to a point, like for ATC, but for FSS, which is now of marginal value, I disagree.

 

[GigG601XL]

Five isn't a big deal. How many did the FAA close when they reorganized back in the 80's & 90's?

 

[flyersfan31]

Yawwn. The ONLY reason I call FSS is if I'm afraid of a TFR in the area, so I can get my question on tape. Otherwise, they have the same wx I get on DUATS. Where is the value added? I call Flight Watch? They have the SAME TO THE MINUTE wx I have on the G1000. Notams? Online.

Now, what if I don't have access to a computer? Good question. Rarely happens, but I can see having them there as the rainy day backup. Cut the costs, cut the contracts, leave a skeleton crew in place. And FOR CRYING OUT LOUD -- why can't the FAA website be a legit source of TFRs? Honestly - in this day of technology, it's not like the stuff is being ripped off a teletype in the FSS. It must be electronically distributed BY THE FAA. Why oh why must we have a documented live FSS session as the only acceptable proof of our defense if we bust one of those GD TFRs?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, there goes that throbbing vein again.....

 

[roncachamp]

Why oh why must we have a documented live FSS session as the only acceptable proof of our defense if we bust one of those GD TFRs?

Who says we do?

 

[flyersfan31]

Who says we do?

The FAA, that's my understanding. Maybe Ron Levy can weigh in here -- it is my understanding that only a recorded FSS briefing can be used to defend oneself in such an instance. I would be more than happy to be shown wrong, as I much prefer DUATS.

 

[TMetzinger]

DUATS is official as well. But only DUAT and FSS are "official" providers.

So if you get a weather briefing from DUAT, and you requested information on things like TFRs and didn't get it, then it's the same as if you asked a briefer and didn't get it. (that's another way of saying you may not be off the hook in either case).

That's why you should always put in the proper tail number and never borrow someone else's DUAT access code - the investigators WILL check to see whether you got a DUAT briefing or filed a flight plan with it.

 

[roncachamp]

The FAA, that's my understanding. Maybe Ron Levy can weigh in here -- it is my understanding that only a recorded FSS briefing can be used to defend oneself in such an instance. I would be more than happy to be shown wrong, as I much prefer DUATS.

I think if I have a printout from DUAT showing I requested TFRs and none were in use I'd be good to go. The FAA can't very well take the position that DUAT is not a reliable source of information.

 

[Maxmosbey]

I call flight service every once in a while, but I don't believe everything they say. One day I called them because the AWOS was giving me a five thousand ceiling, and it was clear as could be. I called the FSS, not necessarily for the local weater, but for the weather in route, and he just gave me the same thing as the AWOS . The problem is that the FSS is not local any more, and they just look at a computer, same as I can do. I call anyway, and a couple of weeks ago I was heading to IOW which is just a little less than a hundred miles away. The briefer told me that one of the runways was closed. Evidently it has been closed for some time, and I didn't know that. I was glad that I found that out, as I had planned on using that closed runway when I got there. I figure that FSS is one of several sources. You can't rely on just one.

 

[gprellwitz]

I call flight service every once in a while, but I don't believe everything they say. One day I called them because the AWOS was giving me a five thousand ceiling, and it was clear as could be. I called the FSS, not necessarily for the local weater, but for the weather in route, and he just gave me the same thing as the AWOS . The problem is that the FSS is not local any more, and they just look at a computer, same as I can do. I call anyway, and a couple of weeks ago I was heading to IOW which is just a little less than a hundred miles away. The briefer told me that one of the runways was closed. Evidently it has been closed for some time, and I didn't know that. I was glad that I found that out, as I had planned on using that closed runway when I got there. I figure that FSS is one of several sources. You can't rely on just one.

Well we had the opposite situation a while back (during the bad old days following the LM takeover). We called for a briefing, and the briefer forgot to mention a rather important NOTAM: the airport was closed! Luckily we found out about it from someone else whose briefer DID mention it, but I know that we weren't the only ones who got a briefing without the closure being mentioned.

And is it important that you use the correct tail number in DUAT(S) as long as you're using your login ID? Sometimes I don't know what plane I'll have until I get to the airport. I thought that they would do a search for both the tail number and the user ID to determine if there was a briefing; at least that's what I thought I gleaned from some of the NTSB reports.

 

[mikea]

I think if I have a printout from DUAT showing I requested TFRs and none were in use I'd be good to go. The FAA can't very well take the position that DUAT is not a reliable source of information.

You're gonna printout all of the FDC NOTAMS where the TFRs are? You buy paper by the case?

 

[roncachamp]

You're gonna printout all of the FDC NOTAMS where the TFRs are? You buy paper by the case?

Just the pertinent ones.

 

[TMetzinger]

I just keep the text file for a bit - it has my transaction number on it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I use Flight watch all the time, but rarely call the FSS itself.

Tim,

Aren't the Flight Watch guys the ones sitting in each ARTCC helping the controllers with weather issues, the Center Weather Service Units? They're the ones who issue "Center Weather Advisories." I think that's why they have a different frequency and call sign.

Oh, and the gov't wants to get rid of them, too, though I can't find the article I saw that in. Here's a bit about why they exist along with some other good info:

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/192703-1.html

 

[silver-eagle]

Connecting direct to DUATS, they present the information on a webpage. You need to save it. DUAT saves it on your online userid. You still have to save it offline.
Most of the flight planning tools save the text automatically.
You could use either method to save it on your PDA (if you think you need it) and take it with you. Once saved, you have your proof you got your briefing.

 

[Everskyward]

Aren't the Flight Watch guys the ones sitting in each ARTCC helping the controllers with weather issues, the Center Weather Service Units? They're the ones who issue "Center Weather Advisories." I think that's why they have a different frequency and call sign.

Flight Watch is operated by FSS not ARTCC. I think the reason they have a discrete frequency is in order to avoid congestion on other frequencies when getting weather as opposed to other FSS services.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Flight Watch is operated by FSS not ARTCC. I think the reason they have a discrete frequency is in order to avoid congestion on other frequencies when getting weather as opposed to other FSS services.

Interesting. Why do you call Flight Watch with the center's name, rather than the FSS name then? It's Chicago Flight Watch or Minneapolis Flight Watch, not Green Bay Flight Watch.

 

[roncachamp]

Interesting. Why do you call Flight Watch with the center's name, rather than the FSS name then? It's Chicago Flight Watch or Minneapolis Flight Watch, not Green Bay Flight Watch.

And why is the FSS's name "Green Bay" when it's located in Ashburn, Virginia?

 

[gprellwitz]

Tim,

Aren't the Flight Watch guys the ones sitting in each ARTCC helping the controllers with weather issues, the Center Weather Service Units? They're the ones who issue "Center Weather Advisories." I think that's why they have a different frequency and call sign.

No. We talked with one of the weather center service folks when we toured ARTCC, and they give the controllers a briefing in the AM and provide information to the controllers and the flow control folks. You won't be talking directly to them as a pilot.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And why is the FSS's name "Green Bay" when it's located in Ashburn, Virginia?

Probably because they'd have to change all the charts and other printed materials. Or maybe just so that they know roughly where you're calling from.

You know what's supremely stupid? Our calls, if they go to a hub, go to Ashburn. Our most excellent Green Bay FSS folks? Well, those who didn't retire got split between Fort Worth and Prescott (NONE were assigned to Ashburn) so we NEVER talk to them. Where the hell do they come up with these ideas?

If I'm lucky, I'll get Lansing. Next best is Kankakee or Princeton, which I don't seem to get much any more. Otherwise, I generally STILL end up with a fairly crappy briefing from the hub. Interestingly, the quality of the briefing seems to go up when the length goes down. The really experienced guys will still say "It's beautiful, go fly!" with a relevant NOTAM or two. The newbies, when I'm flying VFR in day-CAVU weather, still insist on telling me about the ILS markers being decommissioned and the unlit tower that's 130 feet AGL, 17 miles from my destination (no, I'm not exaggerating, I wish I was).

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim,

Aren't the Flight Watch guys the ones sitting in each ARTCC helping the controllers with weather issues, the Center Weather Service Units? They're the ones who issue "Center Weather Advisories." I think that's why they have a different frequency and call sign.

Oh, and the gov't wants to get rid of them, too, though I can't find the article I saw that in. Here's a bit about why they exist along with some other good info:

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/192703-1.html

Nope, flight watch is a dedicated radio position for weather information in the FSS. It's associated with a center name because the specific position generally has remote radio coverage for an entire ARTCC's airspace. The reason you're supposed to give your position in reference to a VOR when calling flight watch is so they can pick the appropriate transmitter near you to use when they reply. Oh, and it's not one person, it's one position, and often you'll have several people working the position.

 

[jmaynard]

The newbies, when I'm flying VFR in day-CAVU weather, still insist on telling me about the ILS markers being decommissioned and the unlit tower that's 130 feet AGL, 17 miles from my destination (no, I'm not exaggerating, I wish I was).

This is one I don't get...Why, when I'm asking for a standard VFR route briefing, do they always (or nearly so) tell me that the glideslope on the KFRM ILS 31 is not usable for coupled approaches below 1480 MSL?