From: elmore@virga.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore)
Subject: Re: FSS Briefers and Weather
Organization: Research Applications Program/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.061342.26856@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton) writes:
><1992Apr3.163320.20663@ncar.uu
>Organization: 
>
>In a previous article, elmore@virga.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore) says:
>
>>
.... I thought FSSers were close to controllers...
>
>Well.....you have been led to believe false information.  FSS types share a 
>designation number and some similar paperwork with ATC's ...it doesn't make 
>them controllers however.  Not by training ....not by duties.  And, is it not 
>training which would make someone a controller instead of a name?

.... And I was Wrong (one of the Deadly USENET Sins)

>>
>>       I politely disagree, and not because I'm a meteorologist.
>>Certainly, FSS briefers should have a generally better knowledge of
>>meteorology than an average pilot becasue it's such a big part of what
>>they do.  Secondly, they are referred to as "specialists".  That means
>>that they have some knowledge above and beyond that of a typical
>>controller and certainly beyond a typical pilot.....
>>
>
>You can disagree as much as you like....and you can be as polite or impolite as 
>you wish.  You're still just as mistaken.

... Gee, Thom...  Perhaps I *am* mistaken.  If so, then I would counsel
that FSS briefers are either 1) damned dangerous or 2) not dangerous
but no better than a machine.  Look: the point I'm making is that if
FSSers don't have any more training than what it takes to be a "rip
and reader" then they don't serve us as relates to weather and FSS
should stop trying to pawn itself off as providing "briefings".
Anyone providing weather briefings to pilots who doesn't know any more
about an upper air chart than "it's got a bunch of wiggly lines" is
just plain dangerous regarding that activity.

>I did not say that they had shouldn't or didn't have a better knowledge 'than 
>an average pilot.'

.. Thom notes that job titles are generally meaningless and that the
term "specialist" really doesn't mean much.

>In either case, the gentleman is referred to as a "Flight Service Station 
>Specialist."  This would seem to indicate that he would be a 'specialist' 
>(there's that name again) in FSS operation.  

	And while it isn't *all* that they do, weather certainly plays
a significant role.

>There is MUCH more to FSS operation.  FSS also handles logistical tasks such as
>flight plans filing and flight following, Search and Rescue, Military flight
>logistics, only to name a few.  Again ....FSS types are well schooled in
>weather

	Apparently our ideas of "well schooled" are quite different.
Hopefully, a real meteorologst is significantly beyond my idea of
well-schooled.

> ...they are NOT meterologists and they are not INTENDED to be.  Some
>have more schooling in meteorology than others ....this is why not all FSS's
>are Flight Watch stations.

	I was unaware of that distinction.  Perhaps only Flight Watch
qualified FSSes should disemminate weather related information.  The
technology certainly exists to route calls that way...

>>
>>Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I didn't expect him to necssarily give me
>>a full-fledged discussion of the product.  Rather, I wanted a simple
>>description of what was there. 
>>
>
>Perhaps you weren't.
>
>Perhaps ....as was the appearent indication in the intial post you said 'do you 
>have access?'   Then, when he admitted such access, all you said was 'well? 
>whats it say?' (Granted, I'm being simplistic here to save typing)
>
>This is a far cry from asking 'is there a trough in such-and-such an area?'

	Maybe but given his response of "I see a bunch of wiggly
lines", I doubt that he would have known what I was talking about.
Certainly, a briefing is an exercise in give-and-take.  And, maybe I
didn't ask this guy enough questions: "Say there, where's the 560 dm
contour run?  How about the 12 hr height falls over the Texas
Panhandle?"  But if a breifer is unsure about what I want, I expect
them to ask.  Isn't that part of their job?  Heck, *I* may not be sure
what I want; if I'm totally lost about it, that's one thing.  But if
the briefer is confused about what I'm after then I expect them to at
least express that confusion.  If all they do is read what's printed
on the page ("just following rules") they can be replaced by a
machine.  That's sort of what DUAT is doing.  I guess I just expect a
little more from a human.

>It is always hard to 
>figure out what really happened when discussions such as these come about.  
>What I CAN say is, most often the pilot is not at all clear on what he wants 
>from the briefer.  Sometimes it's because the pilot doesnt KNOW what he wants, 
>and sometime it's because the pilot knows what he wants and expects the briefer 
>to read his mind.

	True enough!

... Stuff about FSSers being paid more than ATC deleted, except to say that
I agree:  ATCers aren't paid enough for what they do!

>> You must value meteorologists more highly than most; the tower
>>controllers made, on the average, about $20k more per year than I do.
>>($60k vs $40k, very roughly).
>>
>
>And WHAT TOWER are we talking about???????  This, as stated, is almost comedic.
	
	The DEN ATCT is the only one I have any experience like this
with.  I was up there with them for about 4 summers over the past 9
years or so.

>If you are making 40k, then you too are making more than a significant
>percentage of ATCs.
>
>Yes....there are a FEW controllers making nearly 60k.  They are at the largest
>airports (MIA, ATL, ORD, etc) and have been there quite a while.  To base such
>a thesis on these few people is not unlike when the non-flying public thinks
>ALL pilots everywhere are well-to-do merely because there are still a few
>old-timers who've been herding 747s around forever. 

... some stuff deleted...
>
>Had you told him what you were looking for he wouldn't have needed to ask.
>That you seem upset he did not ask would appear as proof that you didn't say. 

	Methinks you missed the point of what I was trying to say
(which means I probably didn't say it well).  *It was his response to
the question that I found objectionable.* While I like to think I can
take a joke, responding with "I see a bunch of wiggly lines" should be
self-evidently an utterly worthless response!  That he didn't follow
up with a "But seriously, folks..." led me to believe that he'd just
given me his best interpretation of what he saw.  And if that's his
best at weather, then he'd best stick with all the other myriad things
that FSSes do and leave the weather to someone who gives a burned
exhaust valve.

	While my focus on this one exception to what is generally a
useful system may sound like a serious indictment of the whole thing,
it isn't.  In general, I've found FSS personnel helpful and
knowledgeable.  Helpful is a key word here: someone who suggests an
obvious alternate route is helpful.  Someone who knows nothing more
(and tries nothing more) than to say "VFR not recommended", isn't.  It
isn't enough to just read the numbers from a chart or screen,
especially when weather plays such an important role in aviation.
That goes double when dealing with marginal VFR scenarios.

	While the "big boys" may be able to slog through just about
anything and really may not need much more than the temps and winds at
FL 370, backed up by a cadre of meteorologists who work specifically
for them producing custom forecasts and briefings, we don't have
either that kind of ability or resources.  To eek out the greatest
utility from our aircraft, we occasionally need some rather insightful
weather briefings.  That's why we have *people* in the system: for the
insight they provide.  DUAT is great, but on those rare occasions when
we need *insight*, the FSS should have *some* ability to provide a
little.  I've had only *one* instance where I thought I got an
incompetant briefer and I related that here.  The rest have always
been able to provide some useful insight when I needed it, one way or
another.


					Kim Elmore
					N5OP, PP ASEL/Glider 2232456
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
*   "All these *WIRES*!!  Why do they call it 'wireless'?"                    *
*		Doc Evans (NQ0I) commenting on his ham radio shack.           *
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
Replies to: elmore@virga.rap.ucar.edu (wires)
	    44.28.0.67 n5op@n5op.ampr.org (radio)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/


Newsgroups: rec.aviation