From: drmayr@btinternet.com
Canadian ATC is not private.
"Bingo-Bongo" wrote in message
news:ntmpqvg12qjj1aevcnfk7macet2j6fqpch@4ax.com...
> 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)
|
