RI830

They are tied to the government.....our tax dollars go to them without any real "work" to justify them. I would call the for-profit.
They don't exactly operate on a 409c3.

USMCFLYR

Could you explain this a bit more?

RI830

Want me splain it mo???

The FAA is a government entity which receives tax dollars from us good ol citizens. They are budgeted for XXX dollars per year and what they do or don't spend reaps a deficit or surplus. Any government agency is in it for the "profit". Problem is that they can't manage a buck to save their lives. Note the 17.682 Trillion dollar debt we hold. 17.700T probably by the time you read this.

IMHO....The FAA's "work" level ranks up there with the local HOA security guard. Cruising around waiting for Joe Criminal to trip over his shoe laces and bust himself. Or creating assinine and knee jerk rules/regs that serve no purpose.

I question myself every time i visit the FSDO......are the magnetic doors, ID checks and over bloated security to keep the nut jobs in or the civil and sane people out?

Does that splain it? Just saying!!

USMCFLYR

Well...you certainly seemed to have copped an attitude at a simple question.

You also seem to be one of those that thinks that 99.9% of the FAA is the FSDO.

This is disappointing.
I know that you have been around long enough to appreciate the complexity of the entire NAS and based on following your posts for quite some time now I figured that you were smarter than that

Regulatory agencies are hardly anyone's favorite entities, and ALL gov't agencies have their fair share of problems with the FAA's having plenty that I see even at my lowly worker level; but that comment about the "work" level shows a serious lack of real knowledge of the myriad of "work" level afforded the NAS to provide the services that keep this aviation system up and operating safely.

RI830

No coping an attitude, sorry if it came across that way.
I think you know of me better than that.
Anyway....as for the FAA, I'm sure there is way more to the multi-level complexity than what my feeble mind understands.
The interaction I've had with ATC Sups and FSDO guys lately has been "less than stellar" to put it lightly. Now that doesn't mean all Feds are bad. The FAA is a government agency and there isn't a government agency that isn't over spending and over staffed.

Any who's......no attitude! Sorry.

USMCFLYR

No need for self-depreciating humor on your part.
No need to try and excuse a 'feeble mind'.
You, like many many others, only see one or two parts of the FAA on a regular basis and it happens that both are seen as 'out to get you' often.
The fact that you seemed to have had a few recent run-ins with ATC and the FSDO are unfortunate. Too bad you don't think as much about those ILS or LPV/LNAV approaches you use or that ALS that you see at 200' on an actual approach, or the radar that ATC used to guide you down and around the other traffic/weather to safely get you on the deck.

Spending and Manning?
As I've said in other threads in this - - all that fluff seems to always be above the worker bee level.

My little part of the pie is taking some large cuts in the flying hours/operational budget for the next few fiscal years. because of it - certain inspections are be curtailed or worked around. Some of it is good because it is due to new equipment that the statistics say don't need to be inspected quite so often and still maintain the same level of quality/safety. I hope this is true.

I'm a simple pilot and I leave this type of decision to the engineers and people with letters after their names. The day that someone has an accident though and it is found to be caused in part, or whole, by a failure in the NAS - people will be screaming about why this or why that for sure. There is no doubt that safety costs money - and like many things in this society - we want 110% safety at 55% of the price.

In my opinion the *fluff* is in the managers ranks. Even my small organization has far too many pay banded managers sitting around and as usual not enough of the ditch diggers so additional duties get piled on eventually. We see quite a few inefficincies too in the flight operations and try our best at the PIC level to handle them, but often we get the 'bigger operational picture dictates...' mantra.

As for an attitude coming across RI.....yes - I'm not sure how else that you would explain the first and last sentences of your response to me:
When have we ever exchanged posts/thoughts in a thread or PMs and used such language when a simple question was asked?

You spent a lot of time defending EAS in the past when some people who actually worked there had some pretty bad experiences. You often said that the whole company shouldn't be judged by a single incident or a single disgruntled person, but you certainly seem quick to throw an entire agency under the bus ("The interaction I've had with ATC Sups and FSDO guys lately has been "less than stellar" to put it lightly....") which provides you with the tools to do your job on a daily basis better than any one else in the world.

Just say'in

RI830

Just Sayin!!

USMCFLYR,

You're right about my jumping to conclusions about the wholism of the FAA. I was tossing in a bunch of other good, hardworking and unseen folks in the bunch with the "not-so-good" ones I have been dealing with.
You are 100% right about my defense of the EAS group in light of a few boneheads. It's easy to spew your narrow minded opinions when convenient and not think about the whole scenario at hand.

Once again, I wasn't trying to cop an attitude with you about your question, but I did make a slight arse of myself with the above posts. My apologies to you!

TonyC

You really ought to be working the math from the ground backwards to your cruise altitude. From touchdown backwards to the FAF is pretty easy, because you're likely on a glidepath. From that point backwards to a Final Approach Course Intercept fix, you might have a little more latitude. From an IAF back to the last fix on the arrival, considering the distance, airspeed, and winds, what's the ideal altitude? If it's 5,500', and the arrival wants you there between 4,000' and 6,000', plan on being there at 5,500 -- not 4,000', and not 6,000'. Work your way back to the next fix. From 5,500' you determine from distance and groundspeed that the ideal altitude is 11,500'. The arrival wants you there between 8,000' and 10,000', so plan on hitting the fix at 10,000' and shallowing your decent to make the 5,500' planned at the next fix. From 10,000 back to the previous fix, given distance and groundspeed, you plan an ideal crossing altitude of 17,000'. The arrival wants you there between FL180 and FL190, so plan on FL180 and a steeper descent afterwards.

It should never be a shot in the dark as to what altitude to pick when you're allowed a range. It may even be that on one day with one set of weather conditions you'll be aiming at the top of those ranges, while on another day with different winds and a different landing runway you'll aim for the bottom of the ranges. On neither day should you be taking a shot in the dark, hoping that the altitude you pick for the upcoming waypoint will facilitate an optimum descent to the subsequent fix. The only way you can be sure it will work all the way down is to work the math from the surface all the way up.






.

USMCFLYR

Gladly accepted RI!
Happy to be back on the usual track with you.

flyguy727

I remember back in the days of using the OBS or VOR's, and flying step down fixes, I always planned my descent so I wouldn't have to do step downs, so this is pretty much routine for me.