|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Mar 8, 2016 18:01:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Mar 9, 2016 11:35:45 GMT -5
Every state who has at least one CWO on the list of 57 should have their Congresspeople up in arms and working together to fight the FAA if they know what's good for them and aviation safety in general. There's 4 possible closures in my state alone, but most of my Congresspeople seem to be too busy grand-standing on who to vote for or not vote for in the primaries (or I just get no response out of them at all) to even so much as write back a letter with any substance. Has anyone from other states received any personal feedback from their Congresspeople on this issue? It would be nice to make a list here, as I know that some of you have.
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Mar 9, 2016 15:16:45 GMT -5
While personal feedback comes from his staff, Congressman for all Alaska Don Young is on this. Keep up the contacts and focus on safety. We stand a good chance of winning this battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by hokiefan on Mar 15, 2016 8:21:33 GMT -5
|
|
ralph
New Member
Posts: 26 
|
Post by ralph on Mar 15, 2016 9:34:05 GMT -5
Interesting, see how this works out |
|
|
|
Post by alstein on Mar 15, 2016 10:21:16 GMT -5
I can imagine the FAA throwing a huge tantrum right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Mar 15, 2016 10:44:33 GMT -5
Go Wichita! Those slimebags at the FAA would happen to include the savings in money in cutting the CWO program as part of their proposed budget. I thought the CWO to LAWRS initiative was "data" driven and not about money....oh wait, it's whatever the FAA says it is to fit the situation today. That gives credence to what the facilitators were telling people who were at the local SRMs that "this (transferring the 57 sites) is a done deal". Huerta says "no decision have been made" (about the transferring of 57 sites to LAWRS). So either their lying or Huerta is lying. Maybe we should be getting to the bottom of that first. If you lie, you should not have a job as a government official at any level (especially as an appointed Department Head like Huerta). That would put an end to a lot of bullshit. I know, I know.....hardly anyone working for the government would have a job, but it's wishful thinking and there's no reason for it other than someone trying to be deceitful to the general public. What ever happened to the days that we only read about in history books on how true and honest government officials are or should be? And I'm not even talking about life-long politicians running for various offices nowadays!
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Mar 15, 2016 11:04:18 GMT -5
Does anyone have the documentation where Huerta says it isnt a "done deal"? If so, Can you please post it?
|
|
|
|
Post by coldlover on Mar 15, 2016 12:23:49 GMT -5
Does anyone have the documentation where Huerta says it isnt a "done deal"? If so, Can you please post it? Yes--- see the following questions asked to Huerta by Congressman Young (IA) back on March 2nd. CWO deal is brought up from 49min to 52min. Huerta ends it by basically saying it's not a done deal. appropriations.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=394414 |
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Mar 15, 2016 12:35:33 GMT -5
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by snowspinner on Mar 15, 2016 13:29:51 GMT -5
Thanks coldlover...he should be fired immediately!!
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Mar 15, 2016 13:37:03 GMT -5
What Huerta said is probably the official position of the FAA. However, that is NOT what is being brought forth at the SRMs.
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Mar 15, 2016 13:41:36 GMT -5
That is why the first thing they say at the SRMs is that recording devices are NOT allowed. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by alstein on Mar 15, 2016 13:50:45 GMT -5
of course, what if it gets leaked?
That said, what happens if Moran's amendment doesn't get in- guessing it's not the final straw.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Mar 15, 2016 14:45:28 GMT -5
Huerta is also full of shit in pretty much everything he states in :51 to :52 minutes in the clip. He gives the usual half-truths and doesn't explain that the FAA unilaterally changed the rules to defining who needs a dedicated CWO and that site Composite Scores basically mean nothing as they did in the past to determine if you were A, B, C, or D-Level site. We're a solid A-Level site by Composite Score, but it means nothing with the new "rules" because we're all now judged on only 2 scores (APCAT and BWO, where BWO calculation was also unilaterally changed to drop all thunderstorm data and the weighted low visibility data because those aren't important!). Nothing mentioned about at the 400 or so sites that are already LAWRS that they basically have little to no actual air traffic. And if anything, some of these sites should be transferred back to CWO based on the job that their doing "taking" observations, probably because they're too busy actually performing ATC duties granted. Nice one Huerta! How about a resignation. Wait. We'd probably get en even bigger numbskull in there next. Just figureheads that these guys are.
skobie
|
|
