Controllers taking weather observations (Agree?)

[cathaywannabe]

I'd like to get as many opinions on this as possible.

There are rumors that NATCA and the FAA are considering giving controllers the authority/responsibility to take all weather observations in the near future. I'd like to get as many viewpoints on this issue as possible, and why you feel the way you do.

Currently, there are about 1,000 ASOS units across the country. Most uncontrolled airports have ASOS which are not augmented, meaning if the ASOS observation is not representative of weather conditons or if a sensor breaks that data is either inaccurate or missing.

Most class "D" airports (control towers) have air traffic controllers which are required to augment the ASOS when data is missing or not representative.

Almost all class "C" and "B" airports have contract weather observers. These are FAA contracted employees that are ceritifed to observe the weather, usually 24 hours a day. They report what ATC controllers report at class "D" airports plus additive data, such as snow depth, thunderstorm location, clouds above 12,000 feet, etc.

What are your feelings on potentially terminating all contract weather observers and having tower controllers at places like MDW, JFK, LAX, SEA, etc. taking weather observations? Good idea or bad, and why?

Again, I'd like as many as possible to chime in on this, regardless of experience.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

Well, many of us are already LAWRS certified and all it takes is a lengthy CBI and a test at the end to be certified. We aren't weatherman, we aren't forcasting weather, we observe weather. Not too difficult. What is your beef? You don't think we can handle it? I augment my WX everyday cause ASOS is crap. We have the tools required to give accurate wind, visibility, and altimeter conditions. Who gives a damn whos doing the weather as long as it is representative.

 

[avbug]

W(h)eather the w(h)eather is cold, or w(h)eather the w(h)eather is not, the w(h)eather's the w(h)eather, whatever the w(h)eather, w(h)eather you like it or not.

(And that, for our departed, but possibly lurking, TonyC, spellmaster).

If one is qualified to take a w(h)eather observation, then why not take it?

Eons ago when I was a lowly firefghter, I elected to get the EMT qualifications. Soon two of us on the department were EMT qualified. Before long, more and more did it...then EMT I, and finally paramedic. The ambulance and fire were separate on that department, but soon we had firefighters running on the ambulance, and it made a lot of sense. Today, of course, firefighters who want to be employed are at a minimum firefighter/EMT's, and more often we're seeing firefighter paramedics on many departments. Over time, many finally realized that having more qualified personnel isn't a bad thing. Even where private ambulance services are provided, having personnel who are qualified and able to do the job, even if it's not their regular job, only makes sense.

Perhaps we're just so used to seeing nonsense these days that logic is painful. I don't know.

Train controllers to have a hand in sampling and reporting the w(h)eather? What, exactly is the drawback?

 

[cathaywannabe]

It seems to me controllers augment the ASOS less frequently than do contract weather observers. The data seems to be less accurate, less reliable and not updated quite as much as larger airports with weather observers. I'm not saying that your specific tower does a bad job, just on average.

For example, I've flown into airports where the controllers augment ASOS when the METAR showed:

1) Wind direction/speed from METAR was missing
2) Thunderstorm was reported when sky was clear
3) FZFG was reported when heavy snow was falling
4) VFR conditions reported when aircraft on final reported IMC/IFR
5) Below minimums were reported when CAT I approaches were successfully being conducted.

 

[gkrangers]

As a controller, why would you want to do more work? You are a specialist at handling traffic...and the weather observers are specialists at weather. But, go ahead and let the FAA throw the weather observers under the bus...

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

Why would I want to do more work, its part of my job description. It isn't anything I have any say over....

 

[ATCER]

I just heard about this yesterday... as much as the union (Natca) is against this there is little we can do. If we are ordered to do it then we have little choice. This is only the beginning ... a snapshot of what we are looking at with the current administration...

User Fees, cripple GA and low cost carriers.

Split the tracons from the towers, sell of the towers.

Consolidate tracons to about 50 and centers to 12 or so.

Sell off oceanic (to Lockheed).

Sell off maintenance (also to Lockheed)

Sell off anything else they can.

They already cut controller hiring for the this year. Think any of this can't happen ??? I have news for you... the wheels are already in motion. The Bush administration is set to introduce legislation this spring for oceanic user fees and it so happens that the wonderful folks at Lockheed already have the software installed to invoice A/C in oceanic airspace.

The current FAA budget just cut funding to privatized towers.

For that news check out ~> http://themainbang.typepad.com/

http://www.natca.net/flyussafe/

http://www.fairfaa.com/

 

[ATCER]

User Fees, FAA Funding

AvWeb (2/27/06): Pelton Says FAA Fees Would Be Bad For Business

From a strictly business-savvy viewpoint, user fees for aviation don't make sense, says Cessna CEO Jack Pelton. Talking to the Washington (D.C.) Aero Club last week, Pelton said arguments to impose such fees are based on five myths --- that the current FAA funding mechanism is not working, that an overhaul is needed to pay for modernization of the airspace system, that GA doesn't pay its fair share, that user fees would provide stable funding, and that the coming fleet (if indeed it does come) of very light jets will place added burdens on the aviation infrastructure. Pelton went on to dispute each of those points, saying the industry needs policy that is "more enlightened, more realistic, more equitable, and more cost effective." FAA officials often speak of the need to run the FAA more like a business, Pelton said. "So, I propose we address some basic business questions before we implement more policies or procedures that could potentially add cost or make the system more burdensome than it already is." Pelton said an evaluation of the current funding system shows little need for new revenue streams -- funding for the FAA has increased, not decreased, in the last decade.
What The FAA Really Wants, According To AOPA

The FAA's underlying aim, AOPA President Phil Boyer said last week, is to get out from under the control of Congress. In a speech to a Pilot Town Meeting last Wednesday night in Wichita, Boyer said the FAA's complaint about diminishing funds is "just total fiction," the Wichita Business Journal reported. "The fact is that they've continued to get increases from Congress every single year, the trust fund is not diminishing by the administration's own numbers and by 2011, just five years, it will be at something like $10 billion. So the FAA is looking for a way to get out from under Congress's control, and ... that's the last thing we want, an out-of-control FAA."
As Congress Begins To Take Sides

At that same meeting, Boyer played a videotaped message from U.S. Rep. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), who sits on the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Tiahrt said he would oppose any effort by the FAA to impose user fees on general aviation. "That should be a pretty clear message to the Bush administration," Boyer said, "because Rep. Tiahrt and his colleagues literally write the check for the FAA. If Congress says 'no' to user fees, as they have in the past, the fees won't happen. Period." User-fee proponents are going to have a fight in Congress, Boyer said. Rep. Tiahrt acknowledged in the videotape that budgets are tight, "but transportation funding remains an important priority."

Aviation Daily: No Need For Overhaul Of FAA Funding Mechanism, Pelton Says
The current FAA funding mechanism is not broken, and the major changes that are likely to be proposed by the Administration are not necessary, General Aviation Manufacturers Association Chairman Jack Pelton said last week.
"The truth is, the steadiness of the FAA's funding stream over the past decade has been nothing short of remarkable," said Pelton, who is also CEO of Cessna. Despite the turbulence of the past 10 years, Congress ensured that FAA's funding has remained stable or increased.
U.S. Transportation Dept. and FAA officials recently argued that tighter federal budgets will mean it will be harder to get general fund contributions to top up aviation trust fund revenues. The White House will soon propose a new funding mechanism for FAA. Airlines want a user-fee system that will increase the share paid by GA. -AS

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

Hey ATCER....I heard rumors that oceanic sectors would goto Airinc or however it is spelled....they are in the game already. Just a rumor of course. Yeah, when they start spliting off these up/downs alot of these towers are going to be 5's and 6's due to traffic volume. Its going to be intresting.

FMBARC

MK

 

[gkrangers]

Heres a ques for the ATC guys...are there any frequencies that can typically be tried for air to air comms?