From: Bingo-Bongo@Circus.net   
      
   On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:25:48 GMT, mrtravel  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >Michael Cortez wrote:   
   >> Miguel Cruz wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>None  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>WASHINGTON - Disappointed by a House vote, air traffic controllers are   
   >>>>looking to the Senate to stop an aviation spending bill that could increase   
   >>>>the number of privately run air traffic control towers.   
   >>>   
   >>>Isn't this the bill whose chief sponsor quietly amended it to remove his   
   >>>home airport from the list of those potentially served by private ATC?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> The fear campaign against private towers continues.  I have found private   
   tower   
   >> controllers to be polite, helpful, and efficient.   Interestingly they have   
   a   
   >> better safety record than government (non-military) controllers.  If private   
   >> towers are bad, why not push to eliminate the existing private towers?   
   >>   
   >> Funny how other countries, including neighboring Canada uses private ATC   
   (not   
   >> just towers!) and does just fine.   
   >   
   Don't forget that after Sept 11th NAVCANADA needed a Government Cash   
   infusion to stay solvent!  Also trying to run a system that is   
   chronically understaffed causes huge delays, requiring reroutes into   
   the US system just to keep things flowing.   
      
       As far as the private towers go....a major reason for the "Safety"   
   record is the lack of safeguards to ensure that all incidents   
   concerning safety are reported.  It is in the best interest of the   
   contractor NOT to report such incidents and unless the newspapers get   
   a hold of the info they usually don't.   
      
        There are many controllers working for the contractors that to do   
   a good job, this I can not argue, but having been turned away from an   
   airport due to traffic volume which really wasn't that bad is   
   frustrating.  Afterwards, when I asked why I, was told that the   
   controller was the only one on duty and had not had a break in over 5   
   hours working moderate traffic! When I asked why no one else was on   
   duty I was told that this was NORMAL staffing.  A fatigued Controller   
   is NOT a good thing!   
      
   CAMI (Civil Aeronautics Medical Institute, located in OKC) did several   
   studies about time on position for Air Traffic Controllers.  The   
   results indicated a steep increase in fatigue and corresponding   
   decrease in awareness after more than 2 hours on position.  CAMI also   
   did a study on decrease in performance after age 56 and therefore   
   government Controllers must either retire or move on to   
   non-operational duties by their 56th birthday.  CAMI is also the   
   reason you cannot be considered for employment with the FAA as an Air   
   Traffic Controller after the age of 31!  These studies guide the FAA   
   but the Contractors do not follow such guidelines, nor are they   
   required to!  Several Air Traffic Controllers retire from the FAA   
   because of their age and get jobs as Air Traffic Controllers with   
   contractors.   
      
        The biggest argument I hear about the contractors way of doing   
   business is that the Towers they run are "low volume".  Any one who   
   has seen the newest list of towers potentially on the chopping block   
   knows this is a false argument.  Towers such as, SFB in FL, a very   
   busy airport with ever increasing amounts of Air Carrier Ops, as well   
   as VNY in CA, one of the busiest VFR towers if not THE busiest in the   
   world!.  I know that if the contractors get those towers the cost will   
   be the same if not more that the current FAA cost or they will have to   
   severely reduce the amount of traffic in and out of these airports,   
   which is NOT good service to the user!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)