Sudbury FSS....I mean Tower ....controversy

[justplanecrazy]

He might have gone on to say that its like landing in a grass field. If its a big field with calm wind any pilot can land whichever way they want at any time they want, there's no forced control like having to land in a certain direction on a specific piece of pavement. Just like an FSS, there's no control, only traffic passing.

I highly doubt this and think that he just vented and spoke without thinking about the ramifications. He'd probably take it back if he could and make a more intelligent statement I'm sure.

Lilfss, if you have an opinion please stick with it or don't voice it at all. If you think all we do is hold a pilots hand and that they can land at any airport safely without our help, then say it, but don't back away from it after its said. I've said having a controlled airport is always safer than an FSS despite the traffic numbers. The only reason they're not all towers is that the traffic numbers don't provide enough risk to justify the cost. Just like an FSS is always safer than a carrs, which is safer than an mf which is safer than nothing. If you don't agree with this, then say it.

[lilfssister]

Lilfss, if you have an opinion please stick with it or don't voice it at all. If you think all we do is hold a pilots hand and that they can land at any airport safely without our help, then say it, but don't back away from it after its said.

I SAY AGAIN: The GENERAL PUBLIC BELIEVES THAT ATC "LANDS THE PLANES" AND PILOTS CAN'T DO IT IF ATC IS NOT THERE TO HOLD THEIR HAND. That is my opinion of the general public's knowledge of how things work. I've stated it at least three times now, and I still stick by it. I hope the font size and highlighted colouration have enabled you to understand what I have said this time.

Now, I'm very tired from doing nothing at work all day but interfere with the safe operation of my airport and annoy pilots, controllers, technologists, vehicle operators, airport electrician, my manager, FSS at either end of my shift, folks at the FIC and NOTAM Office and Meteorological Service of Canada, and no doubt the automated voice at CHU when I did a time check to ensure the clocks were set to the correct time. SO please excuse me if I ignore you til at least tomorrow?

[justplanecrazy]

So are you saying that ATC is not required and Pilots can safely land the planes on their own without control, no matter what the traffic levels are???

By the way its not the general public protesting this, its the GA pilots, the commercial airlines and of course the controllers. It'd sure be nice if we could keep a few airports where ATC could start out with less than a full board of traffic.

[FamilyGuy]

Actually the more and more I think about Mr Valitutti's quote (or mis quote) the more I see it as perfectly sensical and actually quite accurate.

Controlled airport = controlled landing surface. Ignoring runway incursions (which have many reasons-not just ATC mistakes!), when I get an actual CLEARANCE to land, take off or maneuver, I KNOW that there is a licensed individual doing his utmost, his job, to ensure I have a safe and clear area to do so. I can trust that peice of pavement is clear.

Uncontrolled airport (not airspace) = uncontrolled landing surface. Despite the best intentions and professional actions, updates etc from FSS, doing what they should, ultimately I am responsible for making sure the landing surface is clear.

That is alot like landing on grass vs. pavement where the pilot is trying to determine suitability and not ATC.

Do a low and over on a paved runway and its pretty easy to see if it's okay or not - condition, potholes etc.

Do a low and over on a grass strip and despite your best intentions, no matter how hard you look, there can be some nasty surprises hiding in the grass - holes, rakes, low spots filed with water (been there-done that) etc.

Controlled vs uncontrolled - simply that. I'll take controlled anyday.

I didn't read it as a slight on anyone. It seems to me at most uneloquent but otherwise pretty bang on.

[bigfssguy]

[quote="FamilyGuy"]

Uncontrolled airport (not airspace) = uncontrolled landing surface.[quote]


We do get to control vehicles, at least we do something !! LOL! Just playing. LilFSS, jyst relax there trolling and doing a stellar job of it. I'ver got into it with JPC before, he's good knows the right buttons to push. Like i always say i just want to do my job and go home and see my wife. To each his own no point in getting bent out of shape on someones point of view.

[grimey]

Why am I always glad that I shut up early when an ATC vs FSS thread comes up?

[politically_incorrect]

I highly doubt this and think that he just vented and spoke without thinking about the ramifications. He'd probably take it back if he could and make a more intelligent statement I'm sure.

That might be the case.

If so, someone who cannot think before speaking should not be making comments on behalf of 2,400 controllers.

[FamilyGuy]

Politically Incorrect I thought you said you were a member of that Union. If so, you should know that he's a Vice President (clearly said so) hence does not represent 2400 controllers...unless Central region got bigger suddenly, or the National # of controlers shrunk...

[lilfssister]

So are you saying that ATC is not required and Pilots can safely land the planes on their own without control, no matter what the traffic levels are??? .

NO! I am saying that where traffic levels are lower than those requiring a contol service, pilots can actually make a decision to land or not, or where to join a circuit pattern based on information recieved from FSS, CARS, ATF. Most pilots who acheived a rating which enables them to fly unnaccompanied to an uncontrolled aerodrome seem to grasp the concepts involved quite readily.

I am, however, amazed at the illtiteracy rate amongst ATC. I have stated in plain language my interpretation of the general non-aviating public's understanding of Airport Operations, reiterated it twice, and yet ATC professionals seem to interpret it as MY opinion of the ATC job. I cannot help recalling an age-old NCTI/TCTI mantra of RTFQ. In this case RTFP (post). Y'all seem to be getting yr panties in a twist over something I DID NOT SAY.

I hope all my brothers and sisters in the world of ATS have a LOVELY Friday night/Saturday morning. I have so far and I intend to make the most of what is ahead.

[lilfssister]

[quote="FamilyGuy"]Controlled airport = controlled landing surface. Ignoring runway incursions (which have many reasons-not just ATC mistakes!), when I get an actual CLEARANCE to land, take off or maneuver, I KNOW that there is a licensed individual doing his utmost, his job, to ensure I have a safe and clear area to do so. I can trust that peice of pavement is clear.[quote]

And do you think there is some reason that a (on site, not RAAS-in their case they can only tell you what others have told them) FSS is going to keep it a secret if there is a plane, vehicle, animal, three foot deep trench or two foot pile of bear dung on the runway? This liscense thing sounds like a big deal, but we are bound by the same rules as ATC to monitor airport operations, with very vague ("be proactive" ...WTF is that???) rules to define what is our responsibilty and a less powerful union to defend us when the SH*t starts to roll downhill. So perhaps you should be inclined to think that on site FSS might be at LEAST as responsible/vigilante, if not more vigilante in making sure its safe for you to land or take off, due to their ambiguous status, and equal or more possibility of being held liable for their mistakes?

[. ._]

I back lilfssister 100%.

She knows what the @#$! is going on, and busts her female balls to get us on the ground safely.

Got a problem with that, then you're dealin' with the fictional story assault of the ISTP!

But seriously. We all gotta do the best we can to do the best we can.

So let's do it.

-istp

[politically_incorrect]

Politically Incorrect I thought you said you were a member of that Union. If so, you should know that he's a Vice President (clearly said so) hence does not represent 2400 controllers...unless Central region got bigger suddenly, or the National # of controlers shrunk...

Anyone making statements that are liable to be published in a paper that is then sourced country-wide, as in this case, is making statements that will be attributed to the union at large, and that includes me.

I stand by my statement.

[FamilyGuy]

PI I guess I should ask the Premier of another province for comments on mine then eh? And I seriously doubt the Sudbury paper is available country wide - the internet maybe. Does that mean he now represents controllers world wide???

Lilfsssister I have no problem with FSS and you and all your peers no doubt do the best inside the rules and procedures that you can. There is absolutley a place and need in the ANS system for FSS.

That being said, FSS is NOT ATC, never was and never will be. FSS is not control-lite!!! FSS may have NARDS and strips but by definition, the service FSS provides is not control. In fact, in days past the traffic advisory was not the main reason for most FSS stations, it was weather observations and the on site presence for flight planning etc. Along comes AWOS, internet F/P, some FSS's get closed and the wonderful FIC concept comes along. I don't care if FSS moves to the tower cab at night or are 200 miles away - doesn't matter cause FSS is a service - an advisory.

As to the importance of a license, no doubt the operator would dearly love to replace those pesky controllers and all the restrictions the license impose's upon running an "efficient" and substantially cheaper operation. Mainly because FSS is not bound by the same rules as ATC. FSS is bound perhaps by similar company procedures (which are always subject to change), but a licensed individual is ALSO bound by CARS and as such has a legal responsibilty outside the employer/employment contract that has absolutley nothing to do with any Company or Union. Clear?

PS don't take that as a personal attack.

[politically_incorrect]

PI I guess I should ask the Premier of another province for comments on mine then eh? And I seriously doubt the Sudbury paper is available country wide - the internet maybe. Does that mean he now represents controllers world wide???

I found four Sudbury newspapers online.

Anyone who is a representative of the union should know the reach and forum for their comments. And when a union official makes stupid comments like that one, I think that's bullshit, and paints union members in an unnecessarily negative and biased light.

Your premier analogy is not accurate. Carl's comment was in reference to the Sudbury site, but was a ridiculous generalization about FSS/ATC differences that could apply at any site across the country.

[lilfssister]

That being said, FSS is NOT ATC, never was and never will be. FSS is not control-lite!!! FSS may have NARDS and strips but by definition, the service FSS provides is not control.

Honey, you've never hear my advisories, obviously? You learn how to make a request or suggestion something not to be ignored, without appearing to try to control.

In fact, in days past the traffic advisory was not the main reason for most FSS stations, it was weather observations and the on site presence for flight planning etc. Along comes AWOS, internet F/P, some FSS's get closed and the wonderful FIC concept comes along. I don't care if FSS moves to the tower cab at night or are 200 miles away - doesn't matter cause FSS is a service - an advisory.

Just a service? I believe ATC provides "control service"??? You are in the service industry, just like FSS. I could be wrong? You guys don't seem to get the difference between RAAS and on site busy FSS AAS sites, sometimes. And quoting "what used to be" is no real argument. The job of Radio Operator has evolved over 40ish years to become Flight Service Specialist for many reasons, including vehicle control. And there's lots of 24 hr FSS who operate with up to 60,000 movements per year, not just "taking over when the tower closes", and have been doing so for years.

As to the importance of a license, no doubt the operator would dearly love to replace those pesky controllers and all the restrictions the license impose's upon running an "efficient" and substantially cheaper operation. Mainly because FSS is not bound by the same rules as ATC. FSS is bound perhaps by similar company procedures (which are always subject to change), but a licensed individual is ALSO bound by CARS and as such has a legal responsibilty outside the employer/employment contract that has absolutley nothing to do with any Company or Union. Clear?

PS don't take that as a personal attack.

Again, a lot of you ATC don't get it. I don't want to replace you because I think you suck. Where ATC tower service is required by the level of traffic, by ALL means, keep it here, or implement it there. Where it is NOT required, and it is fiscally responsible to the customers to change from ATC to FSS service, then why not? You get FSS, navaid monitoring, NOTAMing and wx observing, for way less than the price of ATC and CWO or crap AWOS. And it's not like the displaced ATC could not be used somewhere else?

Again, the licsense thing? We have medicals, we have to know and abide by CARs, MANOPS, UOMs, and another 8-10 rule books. As I said before, we have more vague rules (Manops and CARS wise) than ATC that leave us as or more open to litigation, and a less powerful union to defend us when that happens.

Believe me I am not taking any of the FSS/ATC interaction personally. I just really don't think that the majority of ATC appreciate the FSS world the way FSS appreciate the ATC world. I think you will find many more FSS who have spent time observing in an ACC and/or tower than ATC observing operations in an FSS. I think anyone in training in any of those should spend SOME time (preferably about 3-4 days minimum) at the FIC/FSS/ACC or towers they are going to be interacting with on a daily basis. Unlikely to happen due to $$, though.

[justplanecrazy]

Lilfss, at the risk of being told that I am misinterperting what you are clearly saying I'm going to speak again.

As someone who has never been a pilot or a controller, you have no idea what we do and have no basis to make a judgement on whether a tower or FSS is required and at what traffic levels. It's kinda like watching someone ride a uni-cycle and saying oh that looks safe and easy or someone ride a roller coaster and say that looks difficult and dangerous. You don't know Manops, you've never seen how difficult it looks when you're the one making the decisions for the first time as either a pilot in uncontrolled airspace or a controller in controlled airspace. Again ask some of the FSS that have converted or tried to convert or ask a student pilot flying in a busy FSS, before you start talking about what is or isn't required. As both a controller and a pilot that has spent a lot of time in controlled and uncontrolled airports, I'm telling you that controlled airports, although they may not be absolutely necessary at airports with 60,000 movements, they are significantly safer and more efficient. There are actually maybe 1 or 2 FSS sites with these numbers and in my opinion they're accidents waiting to happen, all it takes is one bad pilot not being controlled to have your whole traffic plan collapse. I am not saying that what you do as FSS is unsafe, because you have nothing to do with what aircraft do, you're an advisory only service. I am saying that what pilots do is sometimes unsafe. To not be able to control what that one pilot does, puts every pilot in the air in danger.

Yes you guys make suggestions and requests, but if it is that busy then you shouldn't be making suggestions or requests, you should be making control commands. If you have to tell the pilots what to do in order for things to work, you should be trained to control them not just come up with a suggestion that you think is best. That's the equivalent of us making suggested metars after our 15 hours of met class, rather than have a qualified one issued. If you're making suggestions, you should have the same training, be held accountable and make the right suggestions to be safe with the minimum in traffic delays. In otherwords you should be a controller. As has been pointed out, the FSS transition to ATC sucess rates are the same or lower than civilians. If you know enough to make suggestions and run traffic correctly, then you should be able to transition with no problems.

Again, you don't get it. The level of service provided to pilots drops significantly when a Tower is switched to an FSS, both in Saftey and Efficiency. People don't pay us for Navaid monitoring, NOTAMing and wx observing. They pay us for controlling. The reason we have licences and you don't, is because we are responsible for keeping planes seperated and held accountable for it. You are responsible for passing traffic and that is all. This is not a burn on FSS, just a pilot trying to tell you that from our side there's a huge difference between the two levels of service. Also, as a controller, I'm telling you that until you sit in that position and make every pilots decision for him, you have no idea how different the jobs are. You are as naive as the general public you commented about.

Sudbury may be a sleepy tower for most of the time but every airport with 60,000 movements has its moments and that is when ATC will be missed and commercial carriers will look at pulling out. Sudbury was at those traffic levels only a few years ago. Again, you shouldn't base your level of service on averages but rather traffic peaks. If for 95% of the time, they could be perfectly safe with an advisory only service, its that 5% that requires a tower to be in place.

I do appreciate FSS, you'll never see me on here arguing that any FSS with less than 30,000 movements are pointless and should be replaced by CARs to save the pilots money. To make your point more valid, you should argue that point also. FSS do serve a valuable service, they just aren't intended to be used to push large traffic numbers ie. 50,000 movements and up. Until you have actually experienced the difference from the side of the user as a pilot with no instructor or from the side of a controller who can choose to pass traffic or control a situation and see the different results, your comments are very naive and ignorant.

[FamilyGuy]

I don't know if I've heard your specific advisories, but I've heard enough of them over the years. Unfortunately, if yours are the kind that try to "control" then those are the type I have serious problems with.

Since we all love analogies, to me, FSS trying to "control" is alot like having a little town pay a concerned citizen to try to direct traffic at a 4-way stop. All the drivers are supposed to know the rules under the Highway traffic act and follow them. Now throw in someone with the best intentions but no authority, and quite honestly and despite whay some will say, not the proper training and credentials to do so. Who are the drivers suppose to follow, the rules or the guy/gal waving their arms??? And what if there is an accident? Will I the driver be able to say that the concerned citizen "suggested" I go next? Just like pilots, the driver is responsible.

That is alot like FSS trying to "control" something that in reality doesn't need controlling. You will no doubt reply (or perhaps have already alluded to) that where you work you have no other choice because its so busy - that if you didn't do it that way bad things might happen.

That is the whole point of this little debate - Control vs no control - started by the grass anaolgy.

If it's that busy or complex anywhere then put in a Tower with real control service. The 60,000 threshold is a joke and everyone knows it. In TC days it was more of a guidline factored in with other considerations. Now its an absolute target that must be met all year every year for XX number of years before it will even be studied to see if there is a demand . Funny the only studies I've seen recently are the ones to close Towers or otherwise reduce service - and that included the FIC project.

Getting back to history, yes things do change. But the lesson is FSS was never intended to be control lite - that's why there are different grades of Towers. That's why there is big old thick section in the CARS, AIM etc on procedures to follow at uncontrolled airports. The pilots are supposed to be able to get themselves safely on and off the manuevering area with nothing more than the occasional 'advisory'. Worst experience I ever had involving FSS was a YQF a long time ago with an operator that thought he was God...I mean ATC

[sigmet77]

You'd think this would be a good time to stop this thread, you know, with the last couple being common sense and all, but...........