Why do you think it's a bad idea?

Because ATC strikes me as a task that requires substantial oversight and standardization, to say nothing of the massive strike in the 80s that prompted it to be nationalized in the first place.

Somehow I get the feeling you're not up to speed on what has been proposed and the players on each side of the debate. (I don't know if it is good or bad but I know there are serious, smart people involved on both sides.)

Also, check up on your ATC history.

RE: Privatizing ATC

Hmm, because Trump said it, I'm predisposed to thinking that it must be a terrible idea. But yet I can't disagree that some of the technology is fairly antiquated and that there are probably plenty of ways to make things more efficient.

Not smart enough to know how to feel here. My gut feeling is that the slow pace of change and sticking with older technology probably lends itself to stability and reliability. Must be some sick cost-benefit analysis on efficiency vs. potential safety risk.

Canada changed from government ATC to private ATC. It's been a huge success for the (not for profit) company and the government doesn't have to deal with it anymore. Seems like win-win.

Also American ATC equipment is quite dated. There are lots of opportunities to upgrade without a ton of government bureaucracy.

I saw a brief clip of Trump making his announcement and, as usual when I listen to him, I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit. It's downright Pavlovian at this point.

One memorable part was Trump pointing out the delays that air travelers face and his implication was that privatizing ATC will solve this problem. But, of course, delays are a function of the number of takeoffs and landings you can get per hour on a given runway. It has nothing to do with whether or not ATC is a government or a private function.

Long time reader, first time poster. W0X0F, you and this thread you have created, has been a huge inspiration to many of us here.

I only chanced upon your thread back in February of this year and have read it religiously for a few hours per day. I'm fascinated by aviation and it's great to be able to get a glimpse from someone behind the scenes.

Sincerely hoping here that you can get back into flying commercial soon, would be great to meet you. Drinks on me when you are in NYC area.

Cheers!

We all know the OP's position on this.. - http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/258862347-story

I'd imagine it could actually be pretty good if they go with the not for profit model that's been floating around for a while.

Knowing Trump he'll tear that up and make it for profit.

Oh, wow. I was just going to write about this.

I flew for the second time this past weekend. The first time was at night, so I couldn't see much more than a few lights far below. This time, it was morning, two flights.

I looked out the window and it looked like an antartic hellscape. Pure white below, "mountains' of clouds everywhere, and I realized that, at some point, the plane has to go down through those clouds while other planes are going up through those same clouds. Just thinking of all the people who's out there to make sure I live hurt my brain.

if it ain't broken, why fix it?

***

I hate to admit it, but this body ain't built to fly at all. I seriously get messed up horrible from it. I get some minor altitude sickness that lasts for days, plus my right ear was in massive pain for 2 days. Being deaf out my left ear, this scares me quite a bit. I also get an ugly headache and a sense of diminished IQ during the recovery time.

This was 2 short flights. One hour fly, one hour layover, 90 minute flight. I seriously doubt I could handle a cross-country or transatlantic flight.

With that said, I think that flying is an amazing experience, but recovering is a mofo for me. I don't know if I'll ever step on a plane again.

I understand that traveling by horse and buggy used to be quite a thing. Way better than walking.

It's not like the government doesn't use privatized contractors.

There's also 100 years of engineering, hindsight, and fail-overs. This isn't the same as some website that screws up your credentials and life goes on. The people involved are excellent at what they do.

One of those few times I'd rather see a slow march of progress, and yes, hard-core regulation.

What's being proposed was not thought up in the last fee weeks. In fact, I'd say it's the definition of "slow march of progress".

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/

Off-Topic:
EuroControl is that a pseudo-government agency? They put out a lot of solid research on Human Performance and always wonder who pays for it.

Was on a U.S. flight today and the pilot came over the intercom to let us know we were about 20 minutes from touch-down. Obviously, two people instantly jump up and run to the bathroom which is what always seems to happen after that announcement.

Then, about 10 minutes later, after everyone else had returned to their seats and settled in for several minutes, this lady gets up and heads to the restroom. She got in and out in a minute or two but within 10 minutes of her standing up we were on the ground. Was surprised the flight attendants didn't say anything but they were busy doing their thing.

Got me wondering, is there a point where if someone is still in the bathroom within X minutes of touching down the landing has to be aborted? Would the flight attendants have had the authority to enter the restroom and pull her out if she had been taking her time? Does the pilot have information on which restrooms are occupied and locked? Is it correct to assume that there is no scenario, barring some one in a million exception, where they're allowed to land with someone in the restroom?

An Air Asia pilot asked his passengers to pray twice during an engine problem that caused the A/C to shake...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/25/asia/a...sue/index.html

W0X0F, have you've ever heard of a pilot asking his passengers to pray for an issue that seemed to be under control, and why didn't they just shut down one of the engines if that's what was causing the problem? Even if it wasn't under control, shouldn't they be dealing with solving the issue instead of sidetracking and asking all the passengers to start praying? It didn't sound right to me.

Sounds like a great way to induce panic.

I remember when I first arrived in Slovakia in 2002, the year of the Prague floods, the water level in the Danube was also rising dangerously and the archbishop of Bratislava asked people to pray for the waters to recede. I asked a friend (whose mother was in opus dei) why the archbishop didn't instead tell people to go to the waterfront and fill sandbags.

His answer was "Christians believe that God intervenes in the physical world". At that point I realised that pretty much nobody back home in the UK is actually religious in any serious way, because even our archbishops would be telling people to fill sandbags and not really expecting god to do anything.

It sounded like the crew was already in a state of panic. As a pilot I was always trained to handle an emergency as a first priority before talking to anyone, including air traffic control.

If you've seen some of my posts in the "Religion, God and Theology" forum, you know my feelings on God and religion.




So, no, I wouldn't be asking anyone for prayers. And it's amazing to me that this pilot would take time away from working on the problem to make that plea. He should not be entrusted with people's lives.

Wait, which "He" are we talking about?

I guess it doesn't matter, your statement is true for either one.

Also an atheist, but the pilot obviously believes increasing the prayer power increases the chance of the plane getting down safely, so from his point of view it is doing something.

The scary thing is that worldwide the pilot is in the majority and we are in the minority.