From: biffclinton@aol.com   
      
   John Mazor wrote:   
   > "NoneYa"  wrote in message   
   > news:qPACi.18$PG7.10@newsfe05.lga...   
   >>   You are.  No one else is, because it's not a   
   >> significant   
   >>  problem, especially when compared to the real problems   
   >> facing FAA.   
   >>   
   >> OK, since in your words NONE of my comments about   
   >> unqualified blacks or women in the FAA or African ATC are   
   >> valid or allowed in your pea brain I will play along and   
   >> totally ignore race and sex bias problems and PC hiring   
   >> practices in the FAA.   
   >>   
   >> Since you know so much about ATC Mr. Wizard IN YOUR OWN   
   >> WORDS.............   
   >>   
   >> What are the REAL problems in the FAA AND in Africa with   
   >> ATC? You are King for a day. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO FIX   
   >> IT????   
   >   
   > FAA is hardly unique among agencies - many others have the   
   > same or similar problems - but, in no particular order:   
   >   
   > Fund FAA as a government regulatory agency should be   
   > funded - adequate $ on longer, predictable timelines, to   
   > provide all the services that the public expects and   
   > deserves.  In the nearly 30 years that I've been watching,   
   > politicians have made FAA increasingly reliant for capital   
   > and operating expenses on funds that it extracts from users.   
   > The trust fund was supposed to pay for capital improvements   
   > and new technology, but over the years FAA had to tap it   
   > more and more to fund payrolls and pencils.  This eventually   
   > became the norm, to the point where we now have the sorry   
   > spectacle where segments of the aviation community have been   
   > maneuvered into fighting each other over table scraps and   
   > who should pay what for air traffic services.   
   >   
   > Part of this is attributable to the usual political   
   > process - most pols' horizons don't extend past their next   
   > election cycle and their own voters' demands.  Part of it   
   > came from the phony conservative war against "irresponsible   
   > tax and spend liberals" starting with Reagan, which created   
   > an atmosphere that couldn't/wouldn't distinguish between   
   > genuine waste and genuine, necessary government functions.   
   > (I say "phony" because the national debt has more than   
   > doubled under Bush, and 70% of that debt came under just   
   > three Republican presidents.  Fiscal responsibility?  Yeah,   
   > right.)  The FAA is not totally blameless for this - see   
   > below - but the bottom line is that there's no such thing as   
   > a free lunch or free regulatory services.  You say we need   
   > more air traffic controllers?  (We do.)  Then give FAA the   
   > funding it needs to hire them and stop expecting it to be a   
   > "team player" in the campaigns to starve government to the   
   > bone and bash organized labor.   
   >   
   > Some of the other problems are even less tractable because   
   > they are inherent in, and endemic to the   
   > political/bureaucratic process, but here are some   
   > highlights:   
   >   
   > FAA has frequently mismanaged itself and its programs.   
   > Unfortunately for you, this well pre-dates the arrival of   
   > blacks, women, and "sand niggers" (Muslims) that you rant   
   > about here and in other groups.  Let's take collision   
   > avoidance as an example.  Going back to the 1960s after the   
   > post-Grand Canyon reforms were in place, FAA wasted 20 years   
   > on various ground-based schemes before it admitted that the   
   > best, most effective and cost-efficient approach was not on   
   > the ground but in the air.  (This was the result of a   
   > philosophical tug-of-war betwen FAA, which wanted to keep it   
   > all under their control on the ground, and pilots, who   
   > wanted a system that put the information and decision-making   
   > in the cockpit.)  Since the mandate for TCAS in the early   
   > 1990s, there have been no (zero, nada) midair collisions in   
   > the U.S. between TCAS airliners or even between airliners   
   > and GA equipped with Mode-S transponders.  The Not Invented   
   > Here syndrome will continue both on Independence Avenue and   
   > in the field for as long as there is an FAA.   
   >   
   > Or take modernization of the national airspace system.  When   
   > it finally got moving on this in the 1980s, FAA tried the   
   > easy way out - contract the whole thing to one company to do   
   > part of it and manage the rest.  (I suspect, but cannot   
   > prove, that it took this approach in response to the Reagan   
   > diktat to let private industry do things that should have   
   > remained under the responsibility of government.  Farming it   
   > all out to private industry, and promising that it would   
   > allow FAA to reduce the number of controllers, may have been   
   > the only way to sell it to the Contract on America crowd   
   > that was then controlling the purse strings.)  A billion   
   > dollars or so later, it admitted that their approach had   
   > failed and the task had to be broken down into smaller,   
   > manageable projects under its coordination and direct   
   > management.  FAA hasn't exactly been stellar in that area,   
   > either, with constant overruns and missed deadlines, but at   
   > least it's moving/lurching forward.   
   >   
   > Now lets pull back for a wide-angle view of how FAA   
   > regulates safety.  Most of it consists of auditing   
   > paperwork, supplemented by on-site visits and inspections.   
   > Okay, you can't have an FAA agent standing over every   
   > wrench-turner and pilot's shoulder; but given the budgetary   
   > crunches described above, FAA has too willingly "gone with   
   > the program" by meekly buying more and more into the   
   > hands-off approach to regulating, just as it has willingly   
   > submitted to cuts in ATS.  To the extent that there's a   
   > problem with the current Administrator, it isn't that she's   
   > a woman, it's that she's a team-playing Republican   
   > appointee.  Her male predecessor counterparts were hardly   
   > any better.   
   >   
   > Meanwhile, FAA resources that should have been available for   
   > its real job were being diverted by political meddling.   
   > Reagan's Secretary of Transportation and FAA Administrator   
   > decided that the airlines, and particularly the cockpits,   
   > were filled with druggies.  (Hey, they're represented by   
   > unions, so they must be liberals, so they must be godless,   
   > gutless, America-hating, drug-addicted degenerates, right?)   
   > So they mandated random drug testing (an odd position for   
   > "conservatives" to take, but no matter) and what did they   
   > find?  About one-half percent of airline empoyees tested   
   > positive at a time when the average workplace had hit rates   
   > in the 8%-10% range.  Never mind that there was no evidence   
   > of significant drug abuse at airlines, or that there had   
   > never been (and still hasn't been) an accident on a   
   > scheduled U.S. airline where drug or alcohol abuse by the   
   > crew was found to be the probable cause.  Once again,   
   > political ideology and priorities triumphed over reason, and   
   > enforcement resources (see previous paragraph)were diverted   
   > to useless activities.   
   >   
   > This was hardly the first or only first phantom menace that   
   > FAA has had to chase.  Want to know why pilots and FAs have   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)