The following are two articles taken from Flying Magazine, and placed here with their permission. The third article is Wally Pike's response to some of the criticisms in the articles. A lot of the issues brought up by Mr. Hopkins, are addressed in the briefing paper developed by the General Aviation Summit Conference.
Bum Steers - August 2000 Issue of Flying Magazine.
It's Your Decision - September 2000 Issue of Flying magazine
BY JAY HOPKINS
This article has to start with a disclaimer. Several months ago I asked for reader feedback on "the worst advice pilots ever received from an FSS Briefer (including Flight Watch)." I also remarked in that article that I had learned over the years to "take any advice from an FSS briefer with a grain of salt." I went on to explain that "while I'm sure they meant well, several times I have received advice which was directly contrary to everything I knew from my own preflight preparation."
Ray Waggoner, who works at the Jonesboro, Arkansas AFSS, wrote that he was "saddened by my remark" which he felt was an "unfair evaluation." He went on to describe his dedication to his work and the good feelings he gets from giving pilots the information they need and helping them out of tight situations. I really appreciated Ray's comments and want to state clearly that I never intended this topic to be any reflection on the capabilities of Flight Service personnel. Throughout my 35 years of flying, the service I have received from Flight Service briefers has generally been excellent. On the other hand, it is obvious from my own experience and the experiences related to me by other pilots that for whatever reason, FSS briefers can and do occasionally provide pilots with information which is wrong or even downright dangerous.
There were two recent occasions in which I was given a suggested course of action which ran counter to everything that I knew about the current weather situation. The first occurred when I was taking off from Arlington, Texas, after stopping for gas and a personal errand while on my way home to Phoenix from Atlanta. A cold front had led to a line of thunderstorms just north of my route across Texas. While I was in Arlington, a tongue of strong storms pushed south just to the west of Arlington. The radar image on the computer in the pilot lounge showed that I could safely head south until I was past these storms and then turn west towards Phoenix. After I took off and was heading south, I called Flight Service to open my flight plan and relayed my revised route based on the storm. The Flight Service Briefer advised me to turn around and head back to the north and then follow Interstate 30 west I don't know what he was looking at, but the radar I had seen just five minutes earlier indicated that following his advice would put me right into the storm, and my eyeballs confirmed that assessment.
A similar thing happened departing Centennial Airport at Denver. Afternoon thunderstorms had sprung up all along the front range of the Rocky Mountains effectively blocking my route to Phoenix, so I decided to head southeast until clear of the storms south of Denver, then head southwest toward home. Once again, the call to Flight Service to open my flight plan brought advice that I turn and head west directly for the Rockies, then south towards Phoenix. While I had observed a possible break in the storms in that direction, in general the storms were stronger over the mountains. In addition, I would have had to climb to a very high altitude bringing with it the risk of icing in the clouds. Taking all this into consideration, I thanked the briefer and continued with my original plan, which worked out very nicely.
A number of other pilots responded with similar stories. John Baillie recalled a trip he took two years ago from Raleigh-Durham (RDU) to Beaufort-Morehead (MRH) on the North Carolina coast. He stated that he usually tries to leave early for the return trip or wait until after sundown to avoid a line of thunderstorms which typically grow across his route by late afternoon. "On this particular day, we were late out of RDU in the morning due to hard IFR, so we ended up departing MRH close to 4 p.m. The RDU FSS briefer said there was a convective sigmet active for a large chunk of eastern North Carolina, but 30 minutes before departure he had 'nothing organized' on his radar screen."
After a further delay by a line of aircraft at the hold line, they were finally on their way. "The sky ahead looked ominous, with a wall of rapidly darkening clouds seeming to block the way beyond New Bern. The Cherry Point controller had no weather radar available so I called Flight Watch. I asked the briefer who responded if there was a thunderstorm or major cell ahead. He told me to stand by and returned a minute later to say, "no, the radar looks pretty clear--nothing convective down your way." The Mark 1 eyeball did not agree. I didn't like what I saw ahead, and neither did my wife, a right seat nonpilot but experienced passenger and weather watcher. I queried the Flight Watch controller again, and once more he said we were in 'good shape.' I thanked him and switched back to Cherry Point control.
"My wife and I agreed that our anxiety factor was high enough to warrant a precautionary landing. I canceled my flight plan and asked the Cherry Point controller for an expedited approach into New Bern, which he kindly approved. The Flight Watch briefer had suggested that I monitor his frequency, so I had left it on the speaker on the number two radio while talking to Cherry Point on the number one radio. Descending into New Bern, with the weather looking more ominous by the minute, I heard my call sign on the speaker. I switched from Unicom back to Flight Watch and acknowledged the call. '32103, be advised that there is a line of Level Four and Five cells just north of the New Bern airport, moving southeast at 15-20 knots.' When I asked him how his radar could have shown nothing 10 minutes before he admitted, 'I was looking at a three-day-old radar screen!' I thanked him for his honesty and his warning, although I had already made my survival derision by that time.
"We landed and taxied in to the GA ramp just as the surface winds kicked up. It was clear that a downpour was minutes away. We secured the Archer with chain tiedowns and scurried to the shelter of the FBO just as the heavens opened. From the comfort and safety of the FBO lobby we witnessed the thunder, lightning and torrential rain that we would have been flying through had we relied on our friendly Flight Watch briefer. This is the only time I have ever had a 'bum steer' from Flight Watch, but this experience convinced me that what you see is what you get. Just as we should question controllers when their instructions seem inappropriate or dangerous, we need to match the weather briefing with what we see out the window. Would anyone in his or her right mind have flown on into that evil black wall? I don't know, but I can imagine that a relatively inexperienced pilot might be prepared to suspend disbelief on being told that the blackness ahead on a summer's afternoon was nothing, and plough on into the danger."
Several pilots related stories of briefers being either too optimistic or too pessimistic. Sean Niklas was getting ready to leave for his first solo cross-country recently. Although it was a blustery morning with a forecast for 4,000 feet overcast and four miles visibility, the briefer-stated that the visibility would increase to seven to nine miles within half an hour and the weather would be "perfect" for his trip by 10:00. Sean still felt nervous about the weather so he asked his instructor to go along. This turned out to be a very wise decision as the visibility never got above four miles and was down to under three miles on their return.
Bonnie Beckett had the opposite problem. She called Buffalo FSS for a briefing for a local training flight in the vicinity of Palmyra, New York. The briefer stated that "VFR is not recommended." Bonnie asked the briefer for the weather for nearby stations such as Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, which were all reporting about the same weather that she was observing, with a ceiling of 2,500 feet overcast and excellent visibility. Finally Bonnie asked the briefer why VFR was not recommended. He replied, "We have an airmet for mountains obscured for that area." Palmyra is located on the coastal plain south of Lake Ontario, and it is flat from Albany to Chicago!
Dr. Hubert Smith managed to receive both kinds of forecasts in the course of a few minutes. On a flight out of Rockford, Illinois, back when it was possible to talk with the briefer in person on the field, he was told that his proposed trip to central Pennsylvania "was not advised due to a big low with imbedded thunderstorms all along the intended route." He went down the hall to call his boss and tell him he wouldn't be back that day, and then stopped by the FSS for one more look.
"A new briefer had just come on duty, and eagerly asked if he could help me. I told him of my intended flight, and the unlikelihood of completing it. He replied, 'Oh, I don't know about that. The storms are very widely scattered, and there isn't much convective activity at all.' Based on his totally opposite view of the situation I filed, and in less than an hour was on my way home. At 7,000 feet, I was between layers in smooth air, and with a fuel stop in Ft. Wayne, I had an uneventful flight to Pennsylvania. Hence, I got some of the worst advice, and also some of the best, within a 15 minute period from different briefers at the same FSS."
While most FAA Flight Service personnel do their best to give pilots accurate information, it is a difficult job carried out by individuals with varying mounts of training, experience and expertise. Next month I will examine the restrictions FSS briefers operate under, and what pilots can do to ensure the most accurate and timely information.
Reprinted with permission from the August 2000 Issue of Flying Magazine (203) 622-2700
ITS YOUR DECISION!
BY JAY HOPKINS
Last month I recounted some of the bad advice received by myself and others from Flight Service Briefers over the years. This month I want to examine exactly what a FSS Briefer's job is and how we can ensure we get the best briefing possible. It can be very tempting for a pilot in a fix or facing a difficult weather decision to try to rely on the briefer to make those tough decisions for him. Terry Lankford, who is a FSS Briefer, responded that he "has a problem with providing pilots with advice." He went on to say that "briefers are required to provide pilots with requested information in accordance with FAA Handbook 7110.10 Flight Services. The briefing is supposed to be tailored to the type of operation planned by the pilot. The briefer is a pilot resource, not a decision maker."
As stated in the handbook: 'The decision as to whether the flight can be conducted safely rests solely with the pilot." Terry pointed out that "the exception is the VFR Flight Not Recommended statement. This is a 'judgment' call by the briefer and only pertains to sky conditions or visibility. Pilot grade (Student, Private, Commercial, ATP) does not enter into the equation. Pilots must keep in mind that some briefers are very conservative and others pessimistic. As for myself, if I could make the flight VFR, I did not issue the statement."
Terry said that it appears to him that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of pilots who want the briefer to make the decision. He has been asked everything from "Is VFR flight recommended?" to "Is it OK to go?" To Terry, questions like these are an indication of inadequate training for pilots in weather interpretation and the role of the FSS. Terry is trying to do his part by writing books and doing talks on aviation weather.
Ben Bagnall also feels that pilots, especially new pilots, "mistake the information relayed to them by the FSS Briefer for advice." He went on to point out that briefers not only are not supposed to give advice, they "generally read to you what their computer tells them to, even if it is obviously wrong." He also mentioned that we can't really blame the briefers for this approach, as much of their discretion has been taken away due to the threat of litigation. If a briefer did give a pilot "advice", and that pilot crashed, the pilot or his estate could, and likely would, sue the FAA, especially if the advice was incorrect.
One FSS Briefer confirmed another comment by Bagnall, that many briefers are not pilots and thus know little about aviation, pilot experience or aircraft types. This individual related his own frustration from a situation where he was facing deteriorating weather but had plenty of fuel and was ready to deviate any distance as long as he could ultimately continue on towards his destination. His request for specific information to help find the best route was met with a firm "VFR flight not recommended." All attempts to get further information were met with the same response and finally the briefer stopped answering his calls. Although he felt he probably could have safely continued to his destination, the lack of information about what lay ahead forced him to land.
This briefer also provided considerable insight into the current state of the FSS system. During his years working in various FSS facilities, he has noticed "a slow, insidious decrease in the overall quality of the services provided by Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSSs)." He said that in reality there is little that is automated about an AFSS --the process still involves mostly human intervention and thus is highly dependent on the knowledge, experience, personality and motivation of the person giving the briefing.
The response you get also depends on the environment that briefer is working in. The picture this briefer painted of the AFSS system is very similar to what I typically find in my work providing Error Prevention Training to corporations and government agencies. Along with much of government and industry, AFSS staffing levels have been gradually decreased to save money. He said there is also very little training, especially recurrent training. He also described a gradual change over the years in the aviation experience of briefers. It used to be common for a briefer to have an interest in aviation and often even a pilot's license. He says that now a facility with fifty on staff may only have one briefer who is an active pilot, and a few others with some sort of flying experience. The majority have no flying experience whatsoever. They were literally hired off the street and put behind a microphone alter minimal training. During quiet evening periods and on weekends he said he "routinely observes individuals reading newspapers, novels, or magazines, working on a laptop computer or even knitting." While there may be nothing in the rules against filling down time with personal interests, the point is that these individuals are not staying abreast of the current weather conditions so they can provide a better briefing to the next pilot who calls.
Matthew Glasser confirmed the general sense that the service provided by FSS Briefers can be somewhat lacking. He said that in over eight years of flying and over four thousand hours he has never been given poor advice from a FSS Briefer, and that he understands their need to be conservative and not provide advice beyond the actual information available. However, he lamented the lack of patience and thoroughness he has experienced while flying in the Northeast. He stated that "there were many times when the briefer was uncooperative or provided limited knowledge or assistance, thus yielding an incomplete picture to a frustrated pilot. This is worse than a conservative briefing and forecast."
I want to emphasize again that my purpose in writing this article is not to disparage the individuals who work at Flight Service Stations. Like any company or group, there is a wide range of personnel serving as FSS Briefers, and considerable variation in the quality of individual AFSSs. My point is that when we call for a briefing, whether on the ground or in the air, we never know who is taking our call. We may get a very dedicated individual with a pilot's license or at least an interest in aviation who is doing their best to stay on top of changing weather conditions, and who will work very hard to give us the best information possible to help us make the decisions we need to make as pilots. Or we may get a briefer with absolutely no interest or experience in aviation who just put down a novel to take our call.
With that in mind, we need to try to get a sense of who we are dealing with and respond accordingly. If you are dealing with an individual who is uncooperative or seems to have limited knowledge, realize you probably are not going to get much useful information out of that individual and see if you can contact a different weather source. Even if the briefer seems eager to help and very knowledgeable, keep in mind the restrictions all briefers operate under, and that even the best briefers occasionally make mistakes.
A good way to ensure the best picture of what is going on is to track the weather on an ongoing basis using a variety of sources. I personally try to stay abreast of weather trends using the Weather Channel's seven day forecast which is broadcast at twenty minutes after every hour and is also available on the internet. I also might check local forecasts for cities along my route and my destination to get a general idea what meteorologists think is going to happen. As I get within a day of a flight I will check the aviation forecasts along my route using GTE DUATS. I also occasionally use the Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS at http://w3.0mm.com/cg/rd.cgi?i=AOP004007) and Southern Aviation Resources (www.flysouth.org) to access additional information and weather graphics, If the weather is fairly decent, I will file online and never even talk to a briefer. However, if things are really interesting I will often call in to talk to a briefer. It seems that talking to a briefer can help sort things out, and I have often worked with very helpful briefers who, while not giving me advice, shared their view of the current weather and trends. I use their input to clarify and confirm or contradict my own analysis.
There may be help on the way for FSS Briefers. Last year, representatives from aviation groups such as AOPA and NBAA met with members of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists, which is the union that represents FSS personnel. Among other recommendations, the participants unanimously agreed that briefers should spend briefing time on the most important information rather than wasting time meeting legal requirements. They also said that FSS briefers should be provided with specific weather training and certification, and that briefers should have weather graphics with accurate information on current and forecast areas of instrument conditions, icing, thunderstorms and turbulence. Progress is being made as the Operational and Supportability Implementation System (OASIS) has been approved and funded. The OASIS Program will replace the FAA's existing AFSS Model One Automated System, which was never intended to be permanent, with a Windows-based, expandable integrated flight data processing system which provides upgraded weather graphics.
Obviously these and other recommended changes would go a long way toward ensuring that pilots have access to the most accurate and current information possible. Even then, ultimately it is the pilot who has to make the final decision about whether to go or what route to take, and we are the ones who have to deal with the results of our decisions. There is no one else who can or should make that decision, and it is unfair for a pilot to try to push that decision off on an FSS Briefer.
Reprinted with permission from the September 2000 Issue of Flying Magazine (203) 622-2700
August 25, 2000
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have just read Mr. Jay Hopkins' article titled "IT'S YOUR DECISION" in the September issue of your magazine. I want to discuss his perceptions about Flight Service Briefers and share my comments with the readers of your publication.
Since October 1998 I've been privileged to serve as the President of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), the union that represents the Flight Service Controllers in the Federal Aviation Administration. Prior to 1998 I served in various other capacities in NAATS including 13 years as a regional representative. More to the point, I've been a Flight Service Controller since 1975 having worked at Level 1, II, III flight service stations (FSS) and the automated flight service station (AFSS) in Fort Worth, Texas. I've also been certified to work Enroute Flight Advisory Service, which provides real time weather advisory service to the aviation public.
Mr. Hopkins is partially accurate in his article. He has, however, many misconceptions and misunderstandings that are very unfair to the professional men and women who comprise the flight service option of air traffic control.
It is true that FAA Handbook 7110.10 outlines the requirements for pilot weather briefing. It is also certainly true that the pilot is the final authority during the flight but it is an oversimplification to imply that the FSS briefer is merely an automaton providing raw weather data.
FSS controllers specifically do not just "read" weather reports to pilots. We embrace the requirement to provide interpretive weather briefings along with recommendations and advice on alternative routings, altitudes, etc. In fact, FAAH 7110 states in Chapter 3 that pilot weather briefings are defined as "The translation of weather observations and forecasts, including surface, upper air, radar, satellite, and pilot reports into a form directly usable by the pilot or flight supervisory personnel to formulate plans and make decisions for the safe and efficient operation of aircraft." In Section 2 Preflight Weather Briefing FAAH 7110 states "Brief by translating, interpreting, and summarizing available data for the intended flight. Do not read individual weather reports or forecasts unless, in your judgment, it is necessary to emphasize an important point or unless specifically requested to do so by the pilot." Chapter 4, Inflight Services, reinforces the same requirements for inflight service.
Ben Bagnall, quoted by Mr. Hopkins in his article as saying that briefers do not give advice, is likewise incorrect. No one, not even the FAA attorneys in the General Counsel's office, takes that position.
Mr. Hopkins also quotes an unidentified briefer with saying that many briefers are not pilots and possess little knowledge about aviation, pilot experience or aircraft types. No one forced any of our controllers to choose FSS as a career field. They work in aviation because of their interest and for most it, has become an avocation. While all are not pilots, the range of flying experience among a significant percentage of FSS briefers ranges from student pilot to CFII and some hold ATP ratings. All FSS briefers receive training on aircraft types and performance and must be familiar with them. It is ridiculous to think that a briefer could tailor his/her briefing if he/she doesn't know the difference between a Cessna 172 and a Lear. Furthermore, all FSS briefers must be area rated in order to provide lost aircraft orientation, a service that requires not only aircraft performance knowledge but also geographical expertise.
The comment that FSS briefers might read newspapers, novel, magazines or even knit during their breaks seems to me to be a particularly mean-spirited criticism. FAA statistics indicate FSS controllers are on operational positions at least twice as much as controllers in the centers or terminals. Due to staffing shortages, FSS briefers frequently work on operational positions four or more hours before they get a break. When workload does allow, they are entitled to brief breaks from operational duties. If they read newspapers, knit or even watch television in the break room during these brief breaks, so what. I invite Mr. Hopkins to personally spend some time at one of our facilities before he quotes unidentified sources regarding the FSS controller work ethic.
Mr. Hopkins mentions FSS staffing and equipment modernization but he doesn't develop the logical argument. These are critical issues for FSS. While demand for greater quality service continues to increase, the workforce providing that service is shrinking. FSS controllers are capable of expanding many of the services we provide but that isn't possible without a FAA investment in personnel and equipment. We are hopeful that OASIS will solve many of our aging equipment problems but we're critically staffed at an increasing number of facilities. We request that your readers support us in getting adequate staffing that will allow us to provide services we're capable of and the aviation public deserves.
Mr. Hopkins talks about an initiative started last year that may help FSS. Actually he is referring to the General Aviation Summit. FAA Air Traffic is sponsoring a series of these meetings and industry (AOPA, NBAA, SAMA, GAMA, EAA, 99's) is well represented along with the various levels of FAA management and NAATS. Mr. Hopkins mentioned some of the group recommendations but he neglected to state that the clear trend is for FSS briefers to provide even more interpretive information, advice and recommendations. NAATS believes the GA Summit is a real opportunity and we're a strong supporter on all the recommendations. I've been to all the meetings and I've yet to see Mr. Hopkins in attendance or to hear any of the type of criticism he has leveled at FSS controllers.
Absent from Mr. Hopkins' article was any mention of the many other duties FSS controllers perform. While pilot briefing is extremely important, it only comprises one element of our workload. In addition to inflight, preflight and flight watch duties we also provide search and rescue, NOTAM classification and dissemination, flight data, broadcast, TIBS, HIWAS, augmenting weather observations and customs.
In closing, suffice it to say that FSS controllers are highly trained and motivated professionals who take pride in the services we provide to the aviation public. In addition to Mr. Hopkins, I invite all readers to contact their closest AFSS and schedule a tour of the facilities. I believe you will get a different perspective of our workforce.
Sincerely,
Walter W. Pike
NAATS President