|
|
Post by hailyes on Mar 21, 2016 11:10:58 GMT -5
Going through this process of an SRMP I took some notes about some inconsistencies on what the FAA says and what is actual.
I'm sure that this was done at multiple sites by many folks. I just wanted to see if it is important to start a thread that documents this or not?
Inconsistencies with the FAA regarding the CWO's evaluation and elimination.
Example: During our SRMP the first slide stated that CWO’s only back up ASOS and observe Tower Visibility, Thunderstorms, and Sky Cover.
The reality is that CWO’s primary function is to weather observer and use the ASOS as a tool to provide weather observations. Without ASOS contract weather observers are still able to get accurate weather observations out. CWO’s augment all weather parameters not just the one’s listed above. CWO’s do not provide Tower Visibility, they provide Surface Visibility.
I have many examples like this... as I'm sure other sites...
Should this be put on this forum or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Mar 21, 2016 11:27:08 GMT -5
Sure. Why not. Show us what you noted. I'm sure I could add some too.
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by hailyes on Mar 21, 2016 12:43:55 GMT -5
Here's a few.
1. Claim 75% of towers in the NAS have LAWRS
True, but Not all towers are equal in terms of traffic, weather and complexity. 25% of the towers are so important to the NAS (National Airspace System) that you need CWO’s. The problem with this statement is that it implies that LAWRS is no different than a CWO in quality observations even though that is not mentioned.
The truth is at 75% of those towers the weather support in the form of automation is poor. It lacks quality control from those that have meteorological knowledge and has tons of errors and missing information as documented in this forum.
2. Claim that all 57 sites have similar weather and traffic volume/complexity.
This is blatantly false, where is the study? There are significant differences in all facets between the 57 sites. Climatology these sites cross 8 climate zones with with multitudes of different aircraft and mission support, all with unique localized weather patterns and unique terrain weather producing features. Note: The traffic complexity index of the 57 sites ranges from a low of 39.83 to a high of 416.62. That is a huge variance of volume/complexity. There are many other facilities outside the 57 that have a much lower traffic complexity scores. The FAA has changed the airports on the list significantly in the 57 proposed sites 3 times with no SRMP each time all with different airports. This is in violation of the FAA own SRMP rules. The only reason for the number 57 is that number was already laid out in the proposed FAA budget. Lastly, the FAA is not content to shut down just the 57 sites as they want to eliminate the whole program as confirmed by facilitators at a few of these meetings. No sites should be eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Mar 21, 2016 18:54:18 GMT -5
The only 2 parameters the FAA is choosing to use from the 57 airports as compared to current LAWRS sites is the newly revised, unilaterally changed BWO score (they want get rid of sites that are 4 or less climatologically) and the airport's air traffic APCAT score (they want to get rid of sites that are 11 or less). If you don't have a 5 or better BWO score or a 12 or better APCAT score, the FAA thinks you should be LAWRS, regardless of anything else at your airport. So things like the severe winter weather score doesn't mean shit and neither does your composite score because 14 or better is A service and 12 or better is B level service that the FAA isn't taking into account regardless of any other local characteristics. And those are even dumbed down numbers by the FAA's new calculations! Jerkoffs!
Skobie
|
|
