Friday, January 19, 2007
Air Traffic Controllers (Or the lack thereof)
In August of 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller's Organization) went on strike against the FAA over staffing and compensation issues, declaring that due to staffing and pay cuts and antiquated control equipment, the air traffic control system had become unsafe. Then-president Ronald Reagan reacted to PATCO's strike by firing all PATCO members, and replacing them with a combination of transferred military controllers, retired controllers who were lured back, management staff (some of whom hadn't worked a radar screen in years.) and new hires who'd not yet joined PATCO. We had one of the ex-controllers at the company where I worked, and he told me some pretty hair raising stories about understaffed control centers with malfunctioning equipment. The fired controllers were, for the most part, never hired back. Reagan had successfully broken the union. I didn't fly commercial for some time, as I didn't trust the tyros in the system.
About this time, an acquaintance of mine enrolled in an ATC course at a local school, passed the course, and applied for a control job with the FAA. Once you apply, you undergo a series of tests. He missed passing by one point. One stinking point. He was pretty upset and disappointed at the outcome, but eventually landed a job as a dispatcher with a regional airline. He's been doing very well since, and once told me several years ago that in hindsight, it was probably for the best.
Here are the requirements as listed on the FAA's website. You can see that this is not the easiest job to get, or keep. There are all sorts of limits, including age. You'll note that once you pass the age of 31, you're out of the age range they'll even consider. There are medical requirements and knowledge requirements. There are even pre-testing requirements to satisfy before you enter one of the schools. And once you're washed out for any reason, any reason at all during the process, you're done. That's it. Move on with your life, because you don't get a second chance. My point in bringing this all up is that it's a tough, demanding, high stress job that requires unique, exceptional people with special skills. (It doesn't hurt to be a stress junky either.) In other words, these are the type of people who don't exactly grow on trees.
We're coming to a point where many of the wave of replacement controllers hired after the PATCO people went through Reagan's "early retirement plan" are starting to approach retirement age themselves. "But it's only been 25 years!" you might say. Trust me, this isn't a job where you hang around for a long time. Too stressful. Hell, these people usually retire earlier than pilots do. (FAA requires ATP ticket holders to retire at the age of 60.) That brings up one little problem. A look at this FAA memorandum, dated Dec 14, 2006, will reveal the FAA is seriously considering a freeze of controller hiring on March 31st of this year. The current union, NATCA is now in the middle of a new round of labor disputes with the FAA over staffing levels. The union claims that critical control centers and busy towers are chronically understaffed. The FAA, of course, claims there is no understaffing, but yet refuses to release staffing levels at control facilities. Riiiight.
Waaaaait a minute here I'm asking myself. This isn't adding up. We're losing controllers in record numbers to retirement, yet the FAA is looking at a HIRING FREEZE??? Just who in the hell's gonna mind the store? Here's a link to a GAO report, dated 2002. While it's five years old, the numbers haven't changed regarding future needs, vs present staff levels. In fact, there are now 1,100 fewer controllers on the job now than there were three years ago. So if anything, the numbers in this report are worse than they were when it was first written.
A quote from the report states "FAA estimates that by 1010, it will need about 2,000 more controllers than are presently employed to handle future increases in air traffic." and further, "FAA estimates that by 2010, about 7,000 controller specialists, nearly 50 percent of those currently employed, will leave." Let's do the math: Need 2000 more -- 7,000 will leave X a hiring freeze??? Like I said, it just doesn't add up.
None of this is good for the traveling public. Why is this happening? The old bugaboo, money. Controllers are not cheap people to hire. It's a very high stress job, with commensurate health costs associated with that stress. Also, I believe the FAA is holding off hiring more people, in the hope that more computer automation can take over some of the responsibilities. From what I can tell, that hardware and software is much farther down the road than the FAA was hoping. We're sneaking by for now, but sooner or later, it's going to catch up to us, in the form of an aviation disaster. This follows age old management practices. Save money (e.i. dump workers) no matter the cost. If people die while we save a few bucks, we'll just put out the political fires and move on.
What to do? Well, since there seems to be no relief for the foreseeable future, I don't think it's out of line for me to suggest that if you don't have to fly, don't. If it's a day's drive, even two, use your car or take the train if available. That does two things, it gets you out to see the country, and it takes some of the load off of the system short term. If you do fly, use a reputable carrier with a good safety record. Experienced pilots go a long way to make flying in crowded skies safer. Also, consider flying during non-peak days or hours, when the ATC system isn't so busy. Long term? Lean on your representatives, loudly, long and hard. Put a bug in their ear, and don't quit. Many times, in government, the squeaky wheel does indeed get the grease.
Please, do not take one bit of this little diatribe as criticism of the controllers themselves. It is not. They're consummate professionals who are doing the best job they can with the meager tools given them. I have nothing but the utmost respect for them. The fact that after 9/11, they were able to get thousands of aircraft down on the ground without any loss of life or injuries at a moment's notice speaks volumes for their competency and professionalism in my opinion.
For more information:
A very good comprehensive report by the Louisville, Ky Courier Journal:
FAA job requirements:
FAA spending memorandum:
GAO report: (Pretty dry reading, but lots of information.)
About this time, an acquaintance of mine enrolled in an ATC course at a local school, passed the course, and applied for a control job with the FAA. Once you apply, you undergo a series of tests. He missed passing by one point. One stinking point. He was pretty upset and disappointed at the outcome, but eventually landed a job as a dispatcher with a regional airline. He's been doing very well since, and once told me several years ago that in hindsight, it was probably for the best.
Here are the requirements as listed on the FAA's website. You can see that this is not the easiest job to get, or keep. There are all sorts of limits, including age. You'll note that once you pass the age of 31, you're out of the age range they'll even consider. There are medical requirements and knowledge requirements. There are even pre-testing requirements to satisfy before you enter one of the schools. And once you're washed out for any reason, any reason at all during the process, you're done. That's it. Move on with your life, because you don't get a second chance. My point in bringing this all up is that it's a tough, demanding, high stress job that requires unique, exceptional people with special skills. (It doesn't hurt to be a stress junky either.) In other words, these are the type of people who don't exactly grow on trees.
We're coming to a point where many of the wave of replacement controllers hired after the PATCO people went through Reagan's "early retirement plan" are starting to approach retirement age themselves. "But it's only been 25 years!" you might say. Trust me, this isn't a job where you hang around for a long time. Too stressful. Hell, these people usually retire earlier than pilots do. (FAA requires ATP ticket holders to retire at the age of 60.) That brings up one little problem. A look at this FAA memorandum, dated Dec 14, 2006, will reveal the FAA is seriously considering a freeze of controller hiring on March 31st of this year. The current union, NATCA is now in the middle of a new round of labor disputes with the FAA over staffing levels. The union claims that critical control centers and busy towers are chronically understaffed. The FAA, of course, claims there is no understaffing, but yet refuses to release staffing levels at control facilities. Riiiight.
Waaaaait a minute here I'm asking myself. This isn't adding up. We're losing controllers in record numbers to retirement, yet the FAA is looking at a HIRING FREEZE??? Just who in the hell's gonna mind the store? Here's a link to a GAO report, dated 2002. While it's five years old, the numbers haven't changed regarding future needs, vs present staff levels. In fact, there are now 1,100 fewer controllers on the job now than there were three years ago. So if anything, the numbers in this report are worse than they were when it was first written.
A quote from the report states "FAA estimates that by 1010, it will need about 2,000 more controllers than are presently employed to handle future increases in air traffic." and further, "FAA estimates that by 2010, about 7,000 controller specialists, nearly 50 percent of those currently employed, will leave." Let's do the math: Need 2000 more -- 7,000 will leave X a hiring freeze??? Like I said, it just doesn't add up.
None of this is good for the traveling public. Why is this happening? The old bugaboo, money. Controllers are not cheap people to hire. It's a very high stress job, with commensurate health costs associated with that stress. Also, I believe the FAA is holding off hiring more people, in the hope that more computer automation can take over some of the responsibilities. From what I can tell, that hardware and software is much farther down the road than the FAA was hoping. We're sneaking by for now, but sooner or later, it's going to catch up to us, in the form of an aviation disaster. This follows age old management practices. Save money (e.i. dump workers) no matter the cost. If people die while we save a few bucks, we'll just put out the political fires and move on.
What to do? Well, since there seems to be no relief for the foreseeable future, I don't think it's out of line for me to suggest that if you don't have to fly, don't. If it's a day's drive, even two, use your car or take the train if available. That does two things, it gets you out to see the country, and it takes some of the load off of the system short term. If you do fly, use a reputable carrier with a good safety record. Experienced pilots go a long way to make flying in crowded skies safer. Also, consider flying during non-peak days or hours, when the ATC system isn't so busy. Long term? Lean on your representatives, loudly, long and hard. Put a bug in their ear, and don't quit. Many times, in government, the squeaky wheel does indeed get the grease.
Please, do not take one bit of this little diatribe as criticism of the controllers themselves. It is not. They're consummate professionals who are doing the best job they can with the meager tools given them. I have nothing but the utmost respect for them. The fact that after 9/11, they were able to get thousands of aircraft down on the ground without any loss of life or injuries at a moment's notice speaks volumes for their competency and professionalism in my opinion.
For more information:
A very good comprehensive report by the Louisville, Ky Courier Journal:
FAA job requirements:
FAA spending memorandum:
GAO report: (Pretty dry reading, but lots of information.)
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Good god. We're selling F-14 parts now??
And to WHO?!?!?!?
A short course is in order. I wrote about the recently retired F-14 Tomcat here. Read that, and then come on back.
Back? Good. Now, what I didn't say then is that when the F-14 first hit the fleet, it was one of the most modern and deadly fighter craft to take to the skies. It was highly advanced, and full of highly secret navigation and weapons systems, such as the AIM-54 Phoenix "Launch and Leave" missle system.
Unlike our other missile systems of the day, which required a radar "paint" on the target from the launching aircraft until impact, once the Phoenix missile's computer acquired the target, it could be launched and the launching aircraft could move on to other targets, or exit the area, and the missile would home onto the target all by its lonesome using its internal computer and radar guidance system. It was an insanely expensive, yet insanely effective weapon. They were so advanced that the US never sold the plane or missile to another air force. Save for one. The Imperial Iranian Air Force. Why we sold it remains a complete mystery to me. It was a mystery to me when we first sold it to the Shah, and it remains a mystery to me to this day, as the Shah was on shaky political footing and only 3 years away from being overthrown when the first plane was delivered. They eventually received approx 15 or so. Not sure as to the exact number.
But, that's neither here nor there. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force still have both the aircraft and the missiles. There's been considerable debate as to exactly how many of them are still airworthy. There's supposedly been a parts and service embargo in place since the Shah's overthrow. But they still manage to keep some of them flying by cannibalizing parts from the other less airworthy examples. In the meantime, as I noted in my previous post, we've retired our fleet, and there's zero chance they will be coming back. The last one rolled off the lines years ago, and all of the tooling and dies have been scrapped.
Now here's a good question. If no other air force is using these planes, and there's no chance the Navy will use the aircraft again, what on earth are we doing keeping parts around? All of the airframes should have been gutted, and the internal parts scrapped immediately. The remaining airframe shells, with severed wing spars to prevent any future use, can be doled out to museums that want them, and the rest should be shredded and sent to the smelter, along with ALL of the pieces. There is NO NEED to keep anything useful from the planes in stock. NONE! Very little of the mechanical components interchanges with anything else in the Navy's inventory, so unique was the design.
What has me most upset about all of this, is that the current administration has been doing some saber rattling directed at Iran lately. I think that deep down, ole George "Mission Accomplished!" Dubya would LOVE a crack at Iran. If they still have airworthy examples of F-14s to use against our planes, we'll have Grumman aircraft being used to shoot our pilots down, probably using some of the parts they've managed to get their hands on lately.
A defense Dept official, Fred Baillie, was quoted as saying: "Our first priority truly is national security, and we take that very seriously. However, we have to balance that with our other requirement to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money."
Does that include the money the Pentagon pays as survivor's benefits to widows and children of American soldiers killed with our own weapons????
A short course is in order. I wrote about the recently retired F-14 Tomcat here. Read that, and then come on back.
Back? Good. Now, what I didn't say then is that when the F-14 first hit the fleet, it was one of the most modern and deadly fighter craft to take to the skies. It was highly advanced, and full of highly secret navigation and weapons systems, such as the AIM-54 Phoenix "Launch and Leave" missle system.
Unlike our other missile systems of the day, which required a radar "paint" on the target from the launching aircraft until impact, once the Phoenix missile's computer acquired the target, it could be launched and the launching aircraft could move on to other targets, or exit the area, and the missile would home onto the target all by its lonesome using its internal computer and radar guidance system. It was an insanely expensive, yet insanely effective weapon. They were so advanced that the US never sold the plane or missile to another air force. Save for one. The Imperial Iranian Air Force. Why we sold it remains a complete mystery to me. It was a mystery to me when we first sold it to the Shah, and it remains a mystery to me to this day, as the Shah was on shaky political footing and only 3 years away from being overthrown when the first plane was delivered. They eventually received approx 15 or so. Not sure as to the exact number.
But, that's neither here nor there. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force still have both the aircraft and the missiles. There's been considerable debate as to exactly how many of them are still airworthy. There's supposedly been a parts and service embargo in place since the Shah's overthrow. But they still manage to keep some of them flying by cannibalizing parts from the other less airworthy examples. In the meantime, as I noted in my previous post, we've retired our fleet, and there's zero chance they will be coming back. The last one rolled off the lines years ago, and all of the tooling and dies have been scrapped.
Now here's a good question. If no other air force is using these planes, and there's no chance the Navy will use the aircraft again, what on earth are we doing keeping parts around? All of the airframes should have been gutted, and the internal parts scrapped immediately. The remaining airframe shells, with severed wing spars to prevent any future use, can be doled out to museums that want them, and the rest should be shredded and sent to the smelter, along with ALL of the pieces. There is NO NEED to keep anything useful from the planes in stock. NONE! Very little of the mechanical components interchanges with anything else in the Navy's inventory, so unique was the design.
What has me most upset about all of this, is that the current administration has been doing some saber rattling directed at Iran lately. I think that deep down, ole George "Mission Accomplished!" Dubya would LOVE a crack at Iran. If they still have airworthy examples of F-14s to use against our planes, we'll have Grumman aircraft being used to shoot our pilots down, probably using some of the parts they've managed to get their hands on lately.
A defense Dept official, Fred Baillie, was quoted as saying: "Our first priority truly is national security, and we take that very seriously. However, we have to balance that with our other requirement to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money."
Does that include the money the Pentagon pays as survivor's benefits to widows and children of American soldiers killed with our own weapons????
Friday, January 05, 2007
Oh, just dandy!!!
From the "Nobody's paying attention to where the hell they're going as it is already" dept:
So, are we going to have to start looking out for rental car drivers who are cruising around on the internet while they're cruising around town????
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ..."
Isaac Asimov
So, are we going to have to start looking out for rental car drivers who are cruising around on the internet while they're cruising around town????
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ..."
Isaac Asimov
