The FAA intends to decommission the radio network that allows pilots to contact Flight Services by radio. In a Notice of Intent published late last month in the Federal Register, the agency says hardly anyone uses the service anymore because they use their phones and computers. "In the mid-1980s, Flight Service received 22,000 service requests per day across this network, while today they receive fewer than 300 per day," the agency said in the notice. "In turn, from over 350 Flight Service stations with over 3,000 employees 40 years ago, there are now only two (2) facilities with fewer than 200 specialists." Emergency frequencies will be monitored by ATC.
I dont see how â[cell] phones and computersâ will effectively replace radios. We donât have good connectivity in flight when over mountainous regions of the US. And how does safety improve when our eyes and attention are focused inside our cockpit [aka âflight deckâ] when in even moderate turbulence?
A sad day for single pilot GA aircraft who are in a situation of questionable weather conditions and do not have the equipment or ability to download weather information to a computer, or handheld device while in flight. If reductions are in order thatâs OK. But eliminating the service in order to âsave moneyâ will only result in tragedy somewhere down the road⌠just another example of the current administrationâs âkick the canâ mentality.
Buck up. The FAA computer outputs cover what pilotâs need. With emergency frequencies, no one should be out of contact. Flying an instrument flight plan in any single engine aircraft is probably foolish because too many variables enter in; unlike an airliner. Instrument flight plan deviations in single engine aircraft are probably common; increasing the work load for everyone. If you need to file IFR, get on the airlines, leave your single engine aircraft home. Airlines are paid to deal with weather.
Terry, thousands of us pilots with instrument ratings who fly single-engine aircraft file and safely fly IFR flight plans every day. Far from being foolish, flying this way is arguably safer. When youâre in the system, there are actually fewer variables, as ATC provides an extra set of eyes, and the rules of the system itself demand a level of discipline that most of us work hard to maintain; all of that is a great help in dealing with weather vagaries and complex airspace. Iâm not aware of any data that show that âdeviations in single engine aircraftâ are common in IFR flight. They do happen, just as they do in airline flying, but I doubt that they are a significant factor in controller overload.
Not in my experience. You are a dreamer. Holding an instrument rating myself and dealing with ATC needs to be for airline flights only. ATC will place small aircraft instrument flights at the bottom of their priority. You only have to listen to ATC communications to know this.
This âkick the canâ mentality started long ago in the 1990âs with the farming out of FSS. Reduction of the VOR network, with shutting down NDBâs and the Loran system, continued this when GPS came along, transferring cost of maintaining databases that did not exist with VOR and NDB approaches to pilots/operators. How many pilots remember when a restricted radio license was free, now it costs money to get? Donât need one in the US anymore but still required for international flights. This issue now just happens to be happening with the current administration, but has slowly been happening since Clinton was in office.
I support getting rid of CONUS FSS. I cut my teeth flying single pilot night freight, and continue to file IFR in my personal airplanes form time to time. Cell phones allow us to file electronically and get release times straight from relevant controlling facilities. A portable ADSB receiver allows us to get traffic, notams, weather, etc. for less than the price of installing a secondary VHF comm radio.
But the BIG reason I support getting rid of FSS is that consolidation made the services much less valuable. Many years ago youâd call a flight service station and the person on the other end of the phone knew local geopgraphy and could apply common sense to the briefings. They would provide pilots based on who they were hearing on the other end of the phone. While this has been retained in letter, in practice the times Iâve had my students call up 1800WXBRIEF or even get hold of them in flight, I have been underwhelmed with the quality of service. I think we are better off without the service rather than thinking we have a service quality which no longer exists.
Do I support this, absolutely not. There are too many airports in the US that FSS radio network is the only way to get an IFR clearance on the ground. A lot of Pt135 operators have that as a restriction in their ops specs, or in mountainous airports it would be unsafe to try to depart VFR to get clearance airborne. Until all IFR airports in the US get RCOâs to communicate with ATC on the ground (like Canada has), this is not a good idea. Using 121.5 for non-emergency calls just clutters up the frequency more than it already is. After doing recurrent training in the jet I fly, found out the FAA reactivated a VOR approach into JFK that had been shut down due to the reduction of the VOR network. I wonder how many other services the FAA will try to end, only to find those services essential for aviation?
Obviously, Terry, your experience is not my experience. Iâm not sure why you call me a dreamer, but letâs just say that Iâve been filing and flying IFR flight plans since 1972. In all those years I have rarely felt that ATC considered my flight to be at the bottom of their priority list. Thatâs my experience. Yours is yours.
Unfortunately, it does appear the days of a minimally-equipped GA aircraft filing and flying IFR are near its end. One all but needs to have at least ADS-B In to have access to enroute weather.
However, thatâs not exactly a bad thing either because having also done it âthe old wayâ, I can say for certain that ADS-B In/SXM beats it hands down every time. A picture truly is worth a thousand words.
You do you, boo. I fly IFR all. the. time. Sure, there are weather situations I canât handle in my aircraft, but I know my personal limits and I abide by them.
That said, Iâm not sure what your answer has to do with my question. The FAA computer cannot âoutputâ anything unless it gets âinput.â As regards PIREPS, the required input comes from pilots. How does the FAA computer get it unless there is a way for pilots to provide it?
Being an airline pilot and owning a single engine airplane as well, I would have to say this is a ridiculous statement. I NEVER fly VFR anywhere⌠itâs inherently more risky than flying IFR, even on days where there is ZERO weather. An IFR flight in a Cessna 150 takes priority over a VFR flight in a Challenger Jet EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. You get so much more awareness and help being on an IFR flight plan. Its free. Why would you decline it? The only scenario is when arriving at a destination and the weather is good, sometimes⌠and only when it helps me (often it doesnât) I will cancel IFR to not have to fly entire procedures. But you give up traffic spacing and call-outs. File and fly IFR more and you will change your tune.
âMinimally equippedâ and IFR donât go together. I tell people all the time, if you cant afford an iPad and a Stratus (or the like) then you probably cant afford to fly at all. But the âold timersâ try and do things the old ways and on the cheap⌠and I understand that. But why risk it for a few hundred bucks? I wonât bet my life on it.
If itâs true that there has been a 99% reduction in use of the FSS frequencies, then I have no issue canning it. How many millions of dollars is our government spending to support a very NARROW group of pilots? Does it make sense for our government to spend millions to save a few pilots the cost of modern tools to get to the information they want / need? Clearly 99% of us have moved on from using the FSS. Why as a taxpayer should I pay for the holdouts???