|
Post by snowspinner on Apr 7, 2017 7:55:48 GMT -5
Just to clear up any confusion...the FAA gave the vendors the option of going to Washington or doing it via TELCON. The contractors decided on the TELCON...scheduled for 4/11 at 11:30 am EST.
|
|
|
Post by swifterz on Apr 9, 2017 19:54:45 GMT -5
I can also confirm this as well.
|
|
|
Post by snowspinner on Apr 11, 2017 2:59:16 GMT -5
Does anyone have any news on the TELCON?
|
|
|
Post by rich on Apr 11, 2017 9:14:58 GMT -5
Could hear some news later today or tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Little Miss Sunshine on Apr 11, 2017 14:35:52 GMT -5
Could hear some news later today or tomorrow. uuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - not liking this at all
|
|
|
Post by chachiman on Apr 11, 2017 15:40:18 GMT -5
We are still waiting to hear from the vendors about what was said to them dealing with the CWO Program. The USCWOA has put in a request to have a telcon with them very soon to get the facts that were presented to them from the FAA. Preliminary reports and hearsay that I am receiving doesn't look good. It appears the FAA still wants to push forward to eliminate at least some if not all the original 57 sites by the end of FY17. I heard, but I don't have all the facts yet, but what I am hearing is that the FAA has the report done on the 57 sites that was mandated by Congress on the FY17 FAA Appropriations Bill. They about have it ready to go to the FAA COO and I am hearing that they will be getting it to her by April 28th. They still have until July 17, 2017 until their report is due before Congress. Now whether the facts of that report they claim are even factual to begin with is another subject matter to discuss. And whether they are being forthright with our stakeholders is also another issue. Mark my words, one way or another we will continue to fight and educate Congress enough on what we do until they see this program is essential for aviation safety purposes.
LOL, just in from one of the vendors......
I can provide a quick recap -
FAA: blah blah blah, no decisions have been made, blah blah blah, ASOS is awesome, blah blah blah,....
I will get more info by later this evening I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by northwx on Apr 11, 2017 16:18:01 GMT -5
You can bet the report is skewed to "prove" whatever they predetermined... We need a copy of the report, and all the presuppositions that went into it. Then we need to prepare our report on their report to present it to Congress. We have data and our experience - they have beans, and people with nothing to do but count them - who have no real-world experience with ASLOP or flight safety or weather. Stress safety.
|
|
|
Post by snowwx on Apr 11, 2017 23:15:57 GMT -5
There has been, zip, nada, none, nothing from user groups ...on the faa unilateral agenda...There has been NO USER INPUT , and if they say there was, the FAA is once again fabricating reports to congress...the user groups in our area had no idea last time, and had no idea, this time...
|
|
|
Post by coldlover on Apr 11, 2017 23:40:38 GMT -5
There has been, zip, nada, none, nothing from user groups ...on the faa unilateral agenda...There has been NO USER INPUT , and if they say there was, the FAA is once again fabricating reports to congress...the user groups in our area had no idea last time, and had no idea, this time... And for the record-- this is the 2nd half of language from --- FY2017 Appropriations S.2844 - Passed Apr 24, 2016-- that the FAA is supposed to be following--- Contract Weather Observers The Committee is also concerned that, to come to its determination on eliminating CWOs at 57 airports, the FAA removed the frequency of thunderstorms and low visibility as considerations for which airports receive CWO service, without soliciting or receiving sufficient stakeholder input. These types of conditions create serious safety hazards that should have been explored by all stakeholders and adequately taken into account by the FAA in its decision- making processes. Accordingly, the Committee directs the FAA to conduct a comprehensive study, with public and stakeholder input, and issue a report examining of all safety risks, hazard effects, and operational effects on airlines and other stakeholders that could result from loss of CWO services at the 57 airports currently targeted for the loss of service. The Committee further directs the FAA to identify how these targeted airports will accurately report rapidly changing severe weather conditions including thunderstorms, lightning, fog, visibility, cloud layers and ceilings, ice pellets, and freezing rain/ drizzle without contract weather observers and include the process through which FAA analyzed the safety hazards associated with eliminating the program. Additionally, the Committee directs the FAA to provide this report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of its completion. and also this from the FAA Reauthorization Bill SEC. 2306. CONTRACT WEATHER OBSERVERS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report, which includes public and stakeholder input— (1) examining the safety risks, hazard effects, and efficiency and operational effects for airports, airlines, and other stakeholders that could result from a loss of contract weather observer service at the 57 airports targeted for the loss of the service; (2) detailing how the Federal Aviation Administration will accurately report rapidly changing severe weather conditions at the airports, including thunderstorms, lightning, fog, visibility, smoke, dust, haze, cloud layers and ceilings, ice pellets, and freezing rain or drizzle, without contract weather observers; (3) indicating how airports can comply with applicable Federal Aviation Administration orders governing weather observations given the current documented limitations of automated surface observing systems; and (4) identifying the process through which the Federal Aviation Administration analyzed the safety hazards associated with the elimination of the contract weather observer program. (b) CONTINUED USE OF CONTRACT WEATHER OBSERVERS. —The Administrator may not discontinue the contract weather observer program at any airport until October 1, 2017.
|
|
|
Post by coldlover on Apr 11, 2017 23:58:24 GMT -5
Vendors Conference powerpoint 4/11/17 2017 CWO Program Review Final.pdf (1.21 MB) to show how clueless this "weather team" is when it actually comes to LAWRS/ALDARS vs. CWO--- check this out from one of the slides. "JO 7900.5D Changes ALDARS (Aldars does not report FRQ or type of LTG) Beyond 10NM from the ARP lightning is reported in remarks as "LTG DSNT" followed by direction from the ARP, for example, OCNL LTG DSNT NE." Yeah-- Aldars reports FRQ of LTG like I knit a rug. These idiots that are trying to remove us are truly moronic and this will continue to be their downfall. Or maybe they are smart enough to try blend the two (CWO/LAWRS) together to show those in power who know no difference?? I doubt it. Or this--- "If a Thunderstorm was reported by ALDARS it is not necessary to end the event prior to closing. ALDARS will generate a SPECI ending the event when lightning is no longer detected." What happens if a TS or VCTS (I digress) is observed and sent out by the CWO just before closing and not picked up by ALDARS--?? should the CWO start (augment) a TS that ALDARS never sees?-- and leave,,,-- or not??? and - if started- the TS would never end in AUTO mode (being over ridden) until the CWO returns??-- happens all the time at LAWRS sites when they forget to sign off/on. What is worse?? The FAA is opening a can of worms they don't even realize but that is expected from those in charge when they have no clue....
|
|
|
Post by wxlover on Apr 12, 2017 17:35:02 GMT -5
Sounds like they are extending the contracts into FY2018, based on the PDF. Or at least 40 sites are, maybe the rest have already been extended? Either way, that would mean they will have to use next contract year to drum up justification to get rid of sites.
|
|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Apr 13, 2017 7:16:08 GMT -5
Notice page 15 "CWO Site Map" is using the airport rankings from 2013.
2013 was the last of the published industry reports even though a 2014 version was done, but one needed a FOI request to obtain it.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Apr 16, 2017 10:33:40 GMT -5
the FAA can make anything look good on paper. remember when they said that lawrs sites have been doing ASOS for 20 years with no degradation? it has been proven on here, with over 2 1/2 years of spot checking lawrs sites (especially by tornado) that, no, they have not. our ace in the hole is that contractors are cutting and pasting the lawrs incompetence noted on here, and letting the aviation community see the truth in black and white. what would their reaction be if they knew lawrs sites allow ASOS to report UP, when freezing or frozen pcpn is occurring. how would they feel if they found out that lawrs sites are not required to, and usually don't report the frequency/type of lightning, or the location and movement of TS? how would they feel if they knew lawrs sites do not back up failed sensors? would they be interested to know that CWO's are staffed by professionals that dedicate 100% of their time on weather, but lawrs does it as a sideline, from 150 feet in the air. last I checked, planes don't land at 150 feet agl. and that lawrs observers, as a general rule, do not even have rudimentary training in meteorology.
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Apr 16, 2017 23:07:00 GMT -5
You can say that again, hlsto!
skobie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 3:18:06 GMT -5
Yaa
|
|