Bottom Bottom Mail

National Association of Air Traffic Specialists

Representing the Nation's Flight Service Controllers

"Aviation Safety Is Our Business"


NAATS NEWS, OCTOBER 1997


Table of Contents

From The President

Architectural Indigestion

Congressional Update

Reclass Update

OASIS Update

From The CEO

Back to Table of Contents

 


 

From The President

by Michael F. "Mac" McAnaw
NAATS President

Hello Everyone:

Well September has been a quite month, no travel, no major meetings. October will be quite different. I have two Partnership meetings scheduled one DOT another FAA so I will probably get to meet with Mr. Slader Sec Of Transportation, and our new FAA Administrator Ms. Jane Garvey. I will let you know next month how this went. Also the big meeting in Las Vegas is coming up, I hope you have made your reservations.

Last month, I confused more people than I helped. I did sign a letter with Mr. Ron Morgan that we did accept the report from the Reclassifi-cation workgroup. Both Mr. Morgan and I agreed with the conclusion of this report. But nowhere in this letter to the field did it say that NAATS negotiated anybody’s pay. Please read Wally’s letter this month he will be able to explain where we are at in the negotiation process.

Looks like our Contract negotiations will finally start in November, this process will take a long time. Do not expect a completed contract after the first meeting. If you have comments or concerns, write or call your Director so they can be addressed in the next contract. Good luck to the Negotiation team.

In this issue you will find a letter addressed to Ms. Jane Garvey new FAA Administrator, about the NCARC draft report to Congress and DOT. In this report, the NCARC recommends the FAA not only Consolidate regions but (you guessed it) also Flight Service Stations. With the help of Irv Woods and Jeb Burnsides, NAATS Congres-sional Liaisons, we wrote this letter to Ms. Garvey. Wally has a meeting scheduled first part of October so we are in hopes of making our points then.

See you in Las Vegas

 

MAC...

Back to Table of Contents

 


Architectural Indigestion

by Ron Dawson
NAATS SW Region Director

As the latest generation of this seemingly never-ending work group convened on August 28, NAATS sensed that someone in the Agency had finally heard our message. After briefing our Minority Report to most all decision makers up to the Deputy Administrator level, we were left with the feeling that NAATS would finally become an important part in formulating a plan for the future FSS structure. The Air Traffic work group chairperson seemed to "go out of her way" to ensure NAATS was comfortable with representatives chosen for the core group of participants. Our calendars were actually considered when planning meetings. Things looked better this time.

This first meeting was to last two days. We spent the first day in an attempt to "reconcile" the differences between the previous work group’s recommendations and NAATS’ concerns published in our Minority Report. Little was accomplished except reiteration of our concerns, but we were heading in the right direction. It was on day two that FAA management dropped its bomb.

At 9 o’clock we were joined by Jeff Griffith, ATO-1, who’s program office is charged with the FSS future architecture question. Griffith’s direction to the group was not reconciliation, but rather to come up with a plan identifying AFSS facilities to part-time and consolidate by January 1998. After pointed questions to Griffith, we still do not know the significance of the January time frame, or if he expected the "plan", or the part-timings and consolidations by then. Nevertheless, the management representatives on the core group appeared to be in a state of shock. Nothing of significance was accomplished the rest of that day, except to schedule future meetings.

We were not shocked. But we were left bewildered - for two distinct reasons. First was the manipulative tactic used to mislead us into these discussions. We had learned the previous evening that Griffith wanted us to agree to talk about part timing and consolidation. No surprise there: we had been "talking about" these subjects within related work group activities for nearly two years. Our willingness to discuss these subjects during this meeting was to be with the understanding that conclusions were to be theoretical only. The purpose was to identify precisely what savings could be made from such actions, if they were taken. NAATS all along has had serious doubts that any significant savings could be realized by such schemes without drastic cuts in service to general aviation. We saw this as an opportunity to prove our point. Obviously, management’s desire was to take the group far beyond the theoretical. Our second bewilderment centers around the perceived urgency of Griffith’s message. Through-out the history of the previous work groups’ recommendations, it has been acknowledged that any significant reductions in facilities could only happen in the "out years." Model-1FC could not support it, the current ICSS could not support it, nor could OASIS alone. Preplanned Product Improvements were the necessary ingredients for success. Massive consolidation was to be several years away.

So what has changed that would allow us to continue to serve aviation needs in a part-time and consolidated structure without these prerequisites? ATO-1 has changed. The Architecture Work Group FAA Lead has changed. General Aviation has also changed: demand for our services is steadily increasing. We have fewer people to do the work.

 

Back to Table of Contents


Congressional Update: Fall Follies

by Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside
NAATS Government Relations Consultant

As this issue of NAATS News was being readied for distribution, a number of issues with direct impact on NAATS and its membership remained undecided, plus a few new ones began to loom on the horizon. Also at this time, Congress was engaged in its annual rush to finish the coming fiscal year’s appropriations bills before October 1, both creating uncertainties and opportunities. Last but not least, the National Civil Aviation Review Commission was winding up its work, with several recommendations of interest to NAATS being readied for presentation to Congress early in October. And, based on actions taken during the fall – and especially the actions deferred until next year – a great deal can be determined about the challenges NAATS will face in the coming months and into next year.

OASIS

Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed its version of the DOT appropriations bill for next year and included $3.9 million for OASIS, a cut of $1 million compared with what the FAA requested. After discussions with several NAATS Board members, including Kurt Comisky, Irv and I assembled material on the OASIS program’s status and on the need for fully funding the program this year. As a result, we were able to convince the Senate to include the full $4.9 million for OASIS in its version of this spending bill. But, that’s only half the story.

As this was written, the FY 1998 funding level for OASIS remained undecided. Attempts between the House and the Senate to convene a conference committee to iron out differences between their respective versions of the FY 1998 DOT appropriations bill, including OASIS funding, had not yet succeeded. Despite the relatively small difference in funding in this and other FAA programs, other issues – including a controversial provision repealing restrictions on air carrier operations at Dallas’ Love Field – were delaying the conference. In fact, rumors were circulating on Capitol Hill that this dispute would force Congress to include transportation spending in the Continuing Resolution on disputed agencies and departments that appears increasingly likely.

Meanwhile, a number of other transportation programs were facing cuts below either the House- or Senate-passed levels, based on a combination of factors including restrictions on the overall level of funding for transportation programs and the budget agreement between the White House and Congress. Consequently, we may be doing well to receive any funding for OASIS in FY 1998, given that the program has experienced slippage, that there remains a large, unexpended balance within the agency for this procurement and that it is not perceived to be as "mission-critical" as some other programs by Congress or by the FAA.

Nevertheless, Irv and I are optimistic that OASIS funding will be forthcoming in FY 1998, especially since the vendor has been chosen and since this program is one of the agency’s "poster children" for its new acquisition system. Regardless of how the program fares during this cycle, the real challenge will be during next year’s Congressional action on FAA’s programs, when the Administration is anticipated to request some $27.5 million in funding for OASIS. This anticipated level of funding would make OASIS a much more visible target for supporters of other programs and projects that may not fare as well, making it a prime candidate for funding reductions. Similarly, NAATS must work with the agency and with OMB in the coming months to help ensure that the maximum possible funding amount is requested next year if OASIS is to meet its schedule.

FAA Reauthorization

While not an issue for Congress this year, 1998 will also see efforts to reauthorize the FAA, after only a two-year bill was enacted in 1996. At the same time, however, many issues which will be a part of next year’s reauthorization are being developed by Congress now, and will be further discussed informally between now and next spring, when hearings are likely to begin. In working closely with both NATCA and PASS, Irv and I have been developing several issues of great importance to FAA employees, including provisions addressing contract negotiations, disputes and what happens in the event of an impasse. In general, these issues stem from "reforms" enacted in 1996, either as part of the FAA reauthorization or through that year’s appropriations bill, H.R. 2002.

Similarly, overall staffing within the flight service option is a concern and an issue NAATS hopes to bring to the fore during 1998. In fact, Wally Pike and I met recently with Rep. John J. Duncan (R-TN), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation, to discuss our concerns. We came away from that meeting with several good suggestions on ways NAATS can make its concerns known more fully and work with Congress and the FAA to stop the attrition of flight service controllers.

Regardless of how these issues are resolved, the "800- pound gorilla" will be the disposition of the forthcoming recommendations from the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, or NCARC.

NCARC

The NCARC was created by Congress in the 1996 reauthorization as a way to settle on mechanisms to reliably fund the FAA and its programs, continue management and structural reforms and enhance aviation safety in the aftermath of the ValuJet and TWA 800 tragedies. The 21-member Commission – with only one member even remotely representing general aviation – has been working since the spring to develop its recommendations on ways to "improve" the FAA and better serve its customers. Of course, since most of the commissioners have backgrounds in the airline and airport industries, the NCARC’s final product can be expected to reflect their views. That product will be a lengthy document making a series of recommendations to the Congress for incorporation into next year’s FAA reauthorization.

While the NCARC’s interim draft documents include a raft of recommendations to change the ways in which the agency does business, one concept endorsed by the Commission is for the FAA to "further consolidate Flight Service Stations and rely more heavily on personal computers for pilot contacts and flight plan filing." The Commission believes that doing so will save the FAA some $200 million per year over a five-year period or, in other words, reduce demand on the agency’s budget by $1 billion.

Unfortunately, the major proponent of this recommendation is the only person on the NCARC widely thought of as representing general aviation – Commissioner Linda Barker, owner of an FBO in Sioux Falls, SD. Thus, NAATS will be confronted next year with the challenging perception that the only general aviation supporter on the Commission supports downsizing – or eliminating – flight service.

A cursory review of the NCARC’s preliminary final report indicates that while AFSS consolidation is certainly the worst of its recommendations, other changes could be in store for the FAA. Chief among them is the idea of converting the agency’s Air Traffic Division into a Performance-Based Organization – known as PBO-ATS, short for Performance-Based Organization for the Air Traffic System – which will have responsibility for "operational supervision and control of aircraft" and governed by a seven-member board consisting of the Administrator and six others appointed by the President. Essentially, then, the NCARC is proposing that FAA’s Air Traffic Division be transformed into a government corporation, an idea similar in concept to the Clinton Administration’s dead-on-arrival corporatization proposal of only a few years ago. And these are just a few of the recommendations coming from the NCARC to Congress in the next few weeks to frame next year’s debate on reauthorizing the FAA.

By October 10, the FAA and the DOT will have reviewed the preliminary report, commented on it to the NCARC and the report will be finalized. Between then and when Congress adjourns – possibly as early as the end of October – at least one Congressional hearing cold be expected, laying groundwork for next year. Once the House and Senate settle in next year, action will begin in earnest.

Conclusion

Clearly, the next few months present significant challenges to the NAATS Board and to its membership, not only from the standpoint of legislative activity but also in relation to negotiations with the agency and the myriad other issues in which the organization is engaged. Look for additional information on these and other issues in future editions of NAATS News and on the NAATS web site, www.naats.org.

 

Back to Table of Contents


 

 

RECLASS UPDATE 1997

by Don Mclennan
NAATS Regional Directon ANM

I have been working the first half of this year as one of two Co-Team Leaders on the FAA Classification and Compensation Work Group. This work group is responsible for the reclassification of our career field and identification of various levels of work.

As you already know the work group has concluded their efforts and the product is in draft form at FAA Head-quarters. I was asked to address several questions we have received about this effort and to provide a status report.

Q. Is there any funding for reclassification in the 1998 or 1999 budget?

A. Reclassification funding will not appear as a separate line item in the FAA budget request. Rather, it would be dollars budgeted by a joint House/ Senate Committee to fund the Air Traffic Services Operations. Whatever that pot of money holds would be used to implement reclassification. Of course, prior to implementation, NAATS has the responsibility to negotiate any changes to our present level of compensation. As of this writing I have absolutely no idea how much funding the joint Committee is likely to grant FAA for Operations.

Q. Has NAATS already negotiated with the FAA on reclassification?

A. As of this time there has not really been anything to negotiate. The team I worked with was fortunate to have the opportunity to collaborate within the work group and nearly every decision was reached through consensus. We received and studied a tremendous amount of field input and data before even determining which type of classification system would be best suited to our option and, at the same time, fulfill management’s needs. Do you remember the GS-2153 proposal from our colleagues at NATCA? FAA FSS Consolidation? Continuously declining staffing levels? Facility Restructuring and Architectural work groups? These are but a few examples of the many challenges we confronted before finally concluding our assignment and delivering our product for review. We studied several different types of systems before designing our own that integrated several attractive aspects of different systems.

Q. What opportunity has there been for field input? Will there be any opportunities in the near future?

A. The question has two parts. We conducted, within the work group, three distinct information/data gathering projects to insure we considered as many possibilities of classification that we could conceive. We were rewarded with an incredible response from the field. Nearly every field facility responding completely to all of the inquiries. The second part of this question to me, though, would be what opportunity has there been for our members to comment on the draft classification document. Unfortunately, my response is a little tenuous. FAA Headquarters transmitted to the Regions (via cc mail) the document for comment. Here I am not completely clear as to what happened after that. Some regions may not have received it at all, others may have looked at it and commented, still others may have retransmitted to facilities for their comments. I do not believe the FAA ever completed an official comment cycle. Quite frankly, I am not aware of anyone at FAA HQs working on draft responses at this time. My suggestion to the members is that you contact your Regional Director if you feel you have not had the opportunity to comment on the draft and let NAATS approach Management with your collective concerns. Perhaps we could even get them to attempt a field distribution for facility comments to be collected at the regional level. We will have to see how much interest there is.

Q. Is there a formal marketing or communications plan intended to inform and educate bargaining unit members?

A. After contacting several persons closely involved with this project I am sorry to say that there does not seem to be any such plan in place. This was an area that NAATS very specifically, and frequently, addressed within the work group. It was my understanding that Management wanted to put this process into place only after a draft product was developed while NAATS had preferred to inform everyone as it was being developed. Unfortunately, we are now at the end of the project and the implementation of a widespread educational, communication plan is either not being addressed at all or in a very shortsighted manner. We will have to continue to address this with management.

Q. Has the traffic count work group concluded their study and, if so, what effect will this have on reclassification?

A. That work group was eventually viewed as operating in a parallel mode to the Classification and Compensation work group and was finally disbanded. However, the Handbook 7210.3 will reflect that group’s ideas and become the "official" traffic count. As many as up to twelve items may finally be tracked regularly. NAATS position has always been that the more management accurately tracked data, the more it would provide them with a much better idea of the work involved within this option. This does not mean that all twelve tracks of data will necessarily be incorporated into the classification of work for pay purposes. More likely you will see a subset of data used for these purposes.

Q. Are we anywhere near developing a software program to capture the traffic count or building it into our future through OASIS?

A. In fact, I am told we are quite close to having our own software pro-gram that will automate and accurately collect all of the desired data. Ward Simpson, Regional Director, AWP, has been working very hard on trying to expedite this program, much to our benefit. This is very important to the eventual success of implementing a new classification standard within our option. It is important to remember that there are other entities included within our FS-2152-Air Traffic Control Specialist classification. There are three distinct and separate options along with a staff/supervisor & management segment integrated into a single classification standard. Here again, we know you expect to have an opportunity to offer your thoughts to this new plan. The next step to complete, before going ahead with the classification of the FSS option, is to successfully conclude one year of traffic count data collection. Presently, due to multiple ways facilities are counting traffic there is no accurate way to compare various facilities with each other. Without this foundation it would be almost impossible for management to know exactly how many dollars would be spent once the system was put in place. This singular feature of a new pay system is also a major lynch pin in the funding equation. First, management needs to knows how many dollars they have with which to negotiate pay. However, they still can-not be successful until they know what sort of classification system they will implement that directs where certain amounts of dollars will be spent. If the classification is, in part, dependent on the traffic count then you are back to square one. They simply cannot move forward in the absence of an accurate traffic count.

Q. When might you expect to see changes reflected in your compensation?

A. I would not anticipate a successful traffic count, contract negotiation, pay negotiation and integration of all aspects of the FS-2152 ATCS Classification coming together before January of 1999. Please keep in mind that is just my opinion and it is obviously based on a healthy amount of speculation.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you. I, of course, welcome all of your responses, concerns or thoughts on this subject.

Back to Table of Contents


Oasis Update

by Kurt Comisky
NAATS Regional Directon ANE

Acquisition Policy

The agency has chosen an acquisition program that allows for flexibility in both time frames and number of facilities. The SIR 2 document in which the agency provided direction and specifics for the Oasis program identifies a group of facilities to receive Oasis and provides a process to procure Oasis for the balance of the facilities through the use of a series of options. The agency has chosen this flexible approach to proceed with the Oasis program without waiting for the results of the ongoing analysis of the future of Flight Service.

The Oasis Acquisition policy is related to the OIG Report titled Management Advisory Memorandum for Acquisitions for Automated Flight Services. This document was prepared late last year by the Office of Inspector General of the DOT. Basically this re-port indicates the potential reduction in cost for Flight Services through a series of options that include privatization or consolidation. Although this was not an extensive study, the FAA must respond to the report. The agency has had a effort to determine the future of Flight Service dating back to the fall of 1995 with Wally Pike and Ron Masiel representing our interests This group concluded there was no future for Flight Service To recap the political end, the congress did appropriate funds for Oasis, however the agency did not commit to the Oasis program until the agency determined there would be a future for Flight Service, in which the agency did at this time. This effort on the future of Flight Service has continued and has been taken on by Ron Dawson in the Architecture workgroup and the follow on workgroup. This is where the work on the Architecture workgroup and the Oasis program are connected.

The OIG Report made two recommendations, prior to Oasis con-tract award:

1. Perform a comprehensive cost and efficiency analysis of the CONUS AFSS’s and implement further consolidation and/or collocation.

The agency somewhat agreed. The result of the SIR 1 process and the Investment Analysis has generally answered this questions. The agency plans to proceed with the Oasis Program because the SIR 2 allows for flexibility in procurement and there will be no installation until the results of the Architecture workgoup are finalized.

2. Complete an extensive evaluation of the full range of alter-natives for providing flight services. The evaluation should also include a transition plan to map the course and realize benefits as early as possible.

Again the agency somewhat agreed. This is will be results of Ron Dawson’s Architecture workgroup. However, because of the present "deficiencies of the current system" Oasis should not be delayed. The flexibility of the acquisition plan will allow for implementation of the results of this workgroup.

The SIR 2 clearly spells out the details of the Acquisition Plan, remember the plan is full of options rather than specifics. The SIR 2 can be found through the FAA home page. If you have any questions or concerns please call or email.

Part II

On August 25, the agency signed a contract for the deployment of Oasis with the Harris Corporation. For several weeks prior, the agency was in negotiations between the two vendors, EDS and Harris, in which Harris prevailed. At the time of this article, I have not had the opportunity to review the final contract, so I am short on particulars. In the area of deployment, I understand the con-tract makes great use of options. I have previously written the proposed schedule as outlined in the SIR 2. Also, see related article concerning the reasons for the agency’s approach.

I want to take a few moments and relate some background on Oasis. After much review and redefining by the agency, the requirements for Oasis came down to generally a replacement of the present alpha-numeric and graphic functionality into one piece of equipment. This was to address the supportability issue of M1FC more so than improve/update the functionality we currently have. There are provisions for additional technological enhancements through the use of PrePlanned Product Improvements (i.e. ASD and SUA) and scheduled technology refresh. I recall attending various briefings on several issues which some in the agency indicated that Oasis would solve all our ills (i.e. notams/odams), however this is not the case. Oasis, when initially deployed, will generally replace our current functionality on a 90’s hardware platform. As we look at the software aspect, Oasis is the integration of several programs, one of which is the graphic package, Graphics for Oasis will generally satisfy the 7110.10 requirements with some additional capability (i.e. route plot), but the real advantage will be more useful method of display. The incorporation the DUA functionality into Oasis has will allow the pilot and specialist to view the same graphical information. This will reduce the uncertainty of the products for the pilot and increase the level of and quality of information given by the specialist. As for the programs addressing the alpha-numeric functionality, which I believe is a vital aspect of our core responsibilities, Oasis generally ad-dresses these tasks, however there will be some shortcomings. How these shortcomings are identified and addressed will be the source of great discussion.

In the vendor selection process so far, some shortcomings to the Oasis solution have been identified and through further testing, I believe more will become apparent. This brings us to one more hurdle, the individuals chosen by the FAA to participate in the testing of the sys-tem, the OT&E participants. The FAA has chosen a group of up to 15 individuals to perform system tests. The group identified by the FAA to per-form these tests are generally management individuals who are not operationally current, or recently have been, or will likely be in the future. This speaks for itself. The Union has raised this issue and is working with ARS to address our concerns. There was to be Union participation in the formulation of the group, however, this never occurred and the regions were solicited for names of participants. I believe we can resolve this issue, but I am constantly surprised and dismayed by the repeated need to address these issues.

There is an effort underway to explore the possibility of replacing the present consoles. The effort is in the research and costing phase, these are no specific plans as of this date. This effort is underway at the direction of Monte Belger in keeping his commitment made to the Union at the last NAATS Convention. Your questions and comments do have an effect........

I will have more details next month and for those attending the Convention, Scott and I will give a briefing and answer you questions.

Kurt Comisky National Oasis Representative

Back to Table of Contents


FROM THE CEO

by Wally Pike
NAATS CEO

 

RECLASSIFICATION (Please see Don McLennan’s article in this publication.) Last June NAATS President Mike McAnaw and AT-1 Ron Morgan signed a docu-ment approving the basic classification concept. The break point specifics and exact model to be used are still to be negotiated. Naturally a major piece of this process is the compensation that will be attached to the agreed upon facility levels. No bargaining has yet taken place; when it does we will keep you promptly informed. If you have any comments or concerns you should contact your regional representatives. If you have any questions about the classification concept please contact Don or Ward Simpson.

AFSS PART-TIMING/CONSOLIDATION -Air Traffic Operations (ATO) formed a joint NAATS/FAA work group and then instructed it to identify AFSS’s for potential part-timing and/ or consolidation. We intend to be present at these meetings but we have no intention of following this work group charter. Our position is that the current staffing problem in our bargaining unit is created by the Air Traffic policy of refusing to hire into our option and continuing to allow our numbers to attrite. We have never agreed with this policy and we are working with our congres-sional representatives to correct this problem by establishing a pipeline of new FSS employees. Any attempt to classify specific AFSS’s for part-timing or consolidation is, therefore, very prema-ture. The work group would be better served if it were charged with supporting the current struc-ture with necessary modifications and improve-ments (HVAC, lighting, roof repairs, etc..) If you have any questions please contact your regional representatives or our work group lead Ron Dawson and check out his article in this publica-tion.

GROUND RULES BARGAINING FOR NEW CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS - I’m delighted to announce that we’ve reached agree-ment with the FAA on the ground rules we’ll observe during our bargaining over the new contract. Our first meeting with their team will be in the middle of November.

WANT TO WORK FOR NAATS IN D.C.? — As you may know, NAATS now has four repre-sentatives on one year details at FAA Headquar-ters in Washington, D.C. These representatives are still in the bargaining unit and they work in both ARS and ATO. Their details will end on or about the first of June 1998 and, since the details are proving beneficial to NAATS, we anticipate continuing our involvement. If you have any interest in serving as a NAATS representative at FAA Headquarters we encourage you to send your name and a brief resume to President Mike McAnaw. If you have any questions about these positions please contact Mac or your regional representatives.

NAATS NATIONAL MEETING is shaping up to be the best one yet. We will have AT-1 Ron Morgan in LAS to address our membership and all the work group leaders will be there to ex-plain their programs. Of course Mike Doring will be conducting his Facrep training. Please plan to attend.

AOPA EXPO ‘97 will be held in Orlando, Florida on October 23-25. SO Regional Director Craig Campbell is handling the arrangements.

RAISES — 2.8 percent of the federal payroll will be used for pay raises in 1998. Of that figure 2.3 percent will go toward base pay raises and the remaining 0.5 percent will be used for fund-ing locality pay. Locality pay will range from 5.42 percent to 12.06 percent; remember that locality pay is based on where you work, not where you live.

Back to Table of Contents

 


1-800-WX-BRIEF

Use It Or Lose It!


Our Address:

NAATS
11303 Amherst Avenue
Suite 4
Wheaton, MD  20902
301/933-6228
301/933-3902 fax
Walter W. Pike, Chief Executive Officer

BackTopMail


This and associated pages and their contents are Copyright � 1998; National Association of Air Traffic Specialists.
All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated on April 17, 1998.
Please send any comments, problems or questions regarding this site to our Webmaster.
  1. TOGEL HONGKONG
  2. DATA SGP
  3. TOGEL SIDNEY
  4. DATA SGP
  5. TOGEL HK
  6. pengeluaran sdy