A: There is no reason other than it was all we could come up with. I'm sure that each of you could come up with others that we didn't think of Again, regardless of which option you look at, these are only possible advantages/disadvantages. Just because it is listed doesn't mean that it is written in stone.

Q: What exactly does option #3 mean? (The Best Total Pay Package Attainable)

A: In a nutshell, it means that you do not want to tie our hands with inflexible positions which may be detrimental to the outcome. We (the national leadership) were elected to represent you to the best of our ability. If you select this option you are giving your elected representative the flexibility to adjust to changes occurring during the negotiating process.

Example: The membership strongly indicates to us that we should only negotiate a single level pay structure. The agency, however, wants a multilevel structure and is willing to load a multi level package with more money and/or incentives to get it. (or vice versa).

Based on the guidance of the membership, we can't negotiate this without another referendum. Either we continue to try to negotiate something from a position of weakness (what are we willing to give up to get our desired plan) or we stop negotiations for a couple of months and do this referendum thing again.

The New Kid In Town

Everyone has been very supportive and helpful. I'm glad to have this chance to use my talents to help NAATS represent our vital interests.

I am primarily responsible for production of the National Section of the newsletter. Local and Regional News will still go through the Regional Directors and Wally. Editorial policy will continue as follows: inflamatory or libleous material or articles which attack members by name or NAATS in general will not be published. The full editorial policy will now be printed in each issue as policy governing submission of articles.

I hope to expand the scope of the NAA7S News to include articles from outside NAATS on issues that affect our bargaining unit, Letters to the Editor and articles on the history of organized labor. I'm also looking for original cartoons related to our work for inclusion in the National Section. Over the coming months I hope you will see the NAA1S News grow in content and perspective as well as presentation.

There's one only technical glitch, so far. I'm working on a 486/25 Mhz PC and files saved in Windows 97 won't convert into anything but code.

PRESIDENT'S FY 1999 DOT APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

On February 2, along with the rest of the executive branch of the federal government, the Department of Transportation released its piece of the FY 1999 budget request. Owing to the continued application of fiscal restraint over the past few years, the downsizing efforts ofthe Administration and Congress and, most importantly, the continuation of a very strong economy with low Inflation and low unemployment, the Clinton Administration budget is in balance for the first time in 30 years. (The Republican-controlled Senate Budget Committee estimates that this budget may have a $2 billion deficit.)

Now, the Republicans controlling both chambers, the ball shifts to the Congress, where the Administration's budget will be considered, and eventually divided into the 13 regular appropriations bills expected to be enacted into law before the Congress adjourns. Politically, we can expect the Congress to produce its own version of a balanced budget, meaning that fiscal restraint will again be necessary. Any tax cut proposed by the Congress must be offset by corresponding reductions in discretionary spending.

Given that Congress must try to avoid time-consuming partisan battles—perhaps an impossibility— it is unlikely that time can be devoted to controversial legislative initiatives. Reform of the Internal Revenue Service seems to be the top priority for the Republicans leadership, and this is confirmed by the early scheduling of the affected committees. As a result, the NCARC report, with its proposed reorganization of FAA, would seem to be dead on arrival, at least for now. The NCARC proposal, which includes a significant change in the use of certain tax revenues, has strong opposition in the Ways and Means Committee of the House, at the very least. Although the Commission repeatedly cautions against a piece-meal approach, the FAA budget reflects adoption of some of the suggestions of the Commission without endorsing the entire document. We expect Congress to work on a simple FAA reorganization bill this session, but will need to watch this process very carefully.

 A summary of the FAA's FY 1999 budget request appears below:

FAA Request for New Budget Authority - BY 1999

Highlights of the proposed budget, as cited by the FAA are:

Operations: The $5.631 billion total includes $43 million in existing user fees, and provides for mandatory cost-increases and additional staffing.

The FY 1999 budget for Air Traffic Services is $4.4 billion, and increase of 5.5% over FY 1998, which provides 185 additional air traffic controllers (total: 17,985) and 150 additional maintenance technicians (total: 8.585).

The total for Air Traffic Services also includes $58 million to bring on-line and make operational air traffic control and aeronautical navigation equipment now being delivered as part of the air traffic system.

$635 million is provided for Aviation Regulation and Certification and $129 million for Civil Aviation Security. This will provide an additional 45 aviation safety inspectors and certification personnel, plus #3 million to bring several safety-related systems on-line and $2 million to continue airport vulnerability assessments.

Facilities and Equipment: The $2.13 billion will continue to improve and modernize the infrastructure of the National Airspace System, including:

$1.014 billion for procurement and modernization of air traffic control facilities, where major projects are the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System for terminal radar approach control facilities and the display system replacement for the enroute centers.

$423 million for engineering, development, test and evaluation of new systems, including the wide area augmentation system and the air traffic management systems to allow the introduction of free flight.

$177 million for procurement and modernization of non-air traffic facilities and equipment, including automation systems to support FAA safety inspectors and $100 million to continue implementation of explosive detection devices.

$281 million for mission support including systems engineering technical support and contractor oversight of equipment installation.

$290 million, which includes $35 million for continued research in aircraft structure and materials, and $55 million for systems security research. $90 million is proposed for Flight 2000. The remain ing research provides for capacity enhancements through development of advanced traffic managements, more sophisticated use of satellite communication and navigation, improvements in weather information, airport safety, human factors and research in support of FAA internal improvements.

The $1.7 billion is for airport improvement grants to airports and state and local governments for projects that increase capacity, improve safety, and help mitigate noise for areas adjacent to airports.

They began with an exploration of their recent efforts at developing an overall "Air Traffic" Pay System, covering a spectrum from the lowest developmental employee to the highest paid SES official

This is an all inclusive system that takes into account every employee in our Division except clerical and administrative positions which would be included in the "FAA" pay system for employees not compensated under special pay systems.

As negotiations and classification developments have preceded with PASS and NATCA management has included "costing" information for the NAATS bargaining unit. You have to remember that our negotiations with the FAA have ground to a halt because of our inability to arrive at an acceptable agreement around the "covered and contained" issue. However, we received assurances from the people we were meeting with they were including us in this costing process. The process is to discover what costs and savings are possible within the context of developing new and specialized pay systems. They shared with us that "When we develop a system we make assumptions as to what your Union will want to do. But we realize you may choose to pursue something different than NATCA". They added that the current status of developments are more accurately described as the development of management principles and concepts rather than the nuts and bolts of describing a pay system.

In the course of our discussion we questioned when would it be likely that some new pay system would be implemented? The answer was made up of several separate responses. One was the fact there is no money to implement at this time. They are mostly, right now, practicing the "what if' game. Secondly, until the costing is further along there is little information on some of the things we may, or may not, want to do. Thirdly, until there is enough traffic count information to substantiate which facilities, with how many people, would be get out of the budget what you put into it and as of this time FAA has nothing in their next budget to implement any new pay systems. Therefore, the answer is expect a phase in pay system when it does happen which does not sound like any time really soon. I am guessing maybe one to one and a half years from this summer.

They responded they were actually working on the concepts and principles that would result in nobody receiving any loss of pay at ale Unfortunately, I have no specifics to share with you but was very happy and relieved to see they understood the problem this is for those people who suspect they will eventually be looking at some type of pay cut. Their goal is to be able to implement a system in which you suffer no loss of pay, in any way shape or form, from what you are presently taking home. There is no promise this will be completely accomplished but I was still impressed they understood and were addressing our issues to that extent.

In closing, there are a couple of things to think about. At thus time it is too early to say whether or not a multi-level pay system would be of greatest benefit to the greatest number of members or a single pay system would be better. There is a lot of work yet to do. However, having already worked through and developed a product that could be implemented as a multi-level system it would be very easy and very simple to fall back to a single level system. If this had evolve in a different way and no provisions had been made for a multi-level system and then it turned out it was the most advantageous we would be staring at a disaster. NATCA is foraging ahead with both negotiations and pay system development and there are a lot of lessons being learned that with any luck will end up benefiting impacted by a new pay system and finally, you only NAATS by not having to learn everything the hard way. They are also blazing some trails that will make it easier for us to follow if those trails would be of benefit to us. I remind you, though, manage merit knows we are not identical to the NATCA bargaining unit in many ways and will not likely duplicate every single facet of whatever pay system is finally agreed to by them. And, finally, you should understand that much of the work being done is being accomplished in work groups much like the Classification and Compensation Work Group where NAATS and Management worked in collaboration and through consensus to try and develop the best possible product they could. It is management's hope that after working the painstaking issues in that manner the final bargaining and negotiations will be swift and easy.

This meeting I introduced two AOC's, one on a change to 7110.10M when it goes into effect Feb. 26th, and one on the OASIS system. The first AOC was on the change to 7110.10 pare 4-3-5c. regarding issuance of altimeter settings. Rather than just issuing the ALSTG for an airport with an AWOS/ASOS, or a setting from a nearby airport, the directive now states we must inform the pilot to tune in the AWOS/ASOS for the ALSTG. We all know the next question from the pilot will be "What's the frequency" Then we must look it up, or have the data available posted at inflight in order to save time. Then the pilot must change frequencies to get the ALSTG. This is additional workload for both the pilot and controller, and is one more opportunity for an error to occur, i.e. announcing intent to depart on the ASOS frequency rather than the CTAF, etc. Also, in para. 4-5-2cl. for SVFR clearances, the same change was put in. I recommended we stay with our current procedures of issuing the ALSTG and/or weather unless the pilot states they have the current AWOS/ASOS weather. I see no benefit from this change and it creates a lot of extra work. The explanation of changes in the 7110.10M gives no logical reason for the change either. FAA gave us an IOU to find out the rationale (if any) for the change. The ATPAC members and the Executive Director agreed that this appears to be a senseless change. I was on the proofreading committee for 7110.10M and wrote a lengthy comment about this change, but they still put it in. Hopefully, we can get this stopped before the new Order takes effect. I'll keep you posted.

My other AOC was based on information I received at the start of our meeting regarding OASIS. The interactive briefing feature so highly touted as an integral follow-on part of OASIS is being severely cut. Harris Corp. says FAA wasn't specific enough when the contract was being written, so instead of having true interactive briefing as we expected, the current plan requires a pilot to either:

1. Have two telephone lines so that while looking at the weather on the computer, the pilot could then call FSS on the other line, or

2. Hang up the computer and then call FSS and tell the briefer what it was causing the confusion.

Neither of these is truly interactive.

Harris says they can do the true interactive briefing, but now says it will cost more money. The AOPA representative was on the initial committee and stated the true interactive brief was demonstrated at that time. We do not Mow why this was so drastically changed at this time. We will get a briefing at our next meeting on this issue and also an update on ODEMS, the data storage portion of OASIS that was supposed to be on-line already, and has been postponed indefinitely. Meanwhile, now that the users are aware of FAA and Harris' change to the OASIS program, there will be movement on this issue. Benny Lee McGamery, our interim ATPAC Executive Director, made a special point of coming to me after the meeting and assured me that this problem

would be looked into. I really appreciated him telling me that, and hopefully we can stop a big derogation to our brand new system before "the concrete is completely dry". I was speaking with the EAA representative, and he stated that if FAA doesn't keep FSS up to date technologically, that the pilots who can afford to will go to private vendors for their weather and stop using us. He told me that right now up and down the east coast it is possible to have weather graphics and text data linked direct to the cockpit. Of course, the pilots who can't afford these fancy new boxes look to us for their weather. But if we are no longer there because our traffic has dropped, and it appears we are not needed...well, you get the picture. Again, I'll keep you posted.

An AOC was introduced by ALPA regarding L-NOTAM's (again). Their concern is about the difficulty for an air carrier pilot to get local NOTAM's. They want a central distribution system for L-NOTAM's instead of each FSS being the only place holding them. We will get a briefing in April from Flight Standards regarding the importance of L-NOTAM's reference the requirement of FAR 91.103 for the PIC (pilot in command) to have knowledge of everything pertinent to a route of flight. NASA ASRS did say they have a lot of reports of pilots being violated for lack of NOTAM information. I wondered why we couldn't have a database like we do for MOA activity. Local NOTAM's could be listed alphabetically by airport (city)? and we could call it up by VM LOCNO or something similar. The response was not enough space in the MlFC and I don't think they are looking at this for OASIS. The main concern I have regarding this whole issue, is I do NOT want to see local NOTAM's come out in the course of a standard pilot weather briefing. Stay tuned...

ICAO flight plan standardization was mentioned again. Meetings have been occurring, and Jim Parris and Terry Lankford are involved for NAATS. The group is trying to come up with a universal flight plan rather than different flight plans for each group, i.e. general aviation, military, ICAO, air carrier, etc. FAA did state they are pushing to keep our domestic-style flight plan with a few modifications as the international standard. There are also problems with computer interfaces, and NavCanada is going to stop amending our flight plans to fit their system, so standardization is needed.

AOPA introduced an AOC regarding problems with Customs notification in the Florida airports. VFR Bight plans are properly being passed, but IFR flight plans were inconsistent. AOPA requested words be added to 7110.65 similar to what we have in 7110.10 regarding Customs advisories. They would like for FAA to ensure Customs is notified and that once the pilot notified one government agency, that the pilot's responsibility was ended. The system of notification in Southern Region was working until someone in Customs in that region 'pulled the plug". FAA is not going to accept the responsibility for Customs notification and change the order relieving the pilot of the ultimate responsibility for Customs notification. But, Benny Lee did promise that he would get things solved in Southern Region with the Customs people, and get them back on track.

We received an update briefing from Dan Hanlon, program manager with GPS Satellite Navigation Program. The committee Fred Manthey is on has not met since their initial meeting. I have detailed notes on that briefing, so if anyone is interested in implementation dates, etc., let me know.

Finally, last meeting we had a promise from then ATO-120, Tony Ferrante, that the DF program would be supported for at least two more years, and that the 9964 DF's could be relocated to locations of poor radar coverage where the 5530 DF's had quit working. My facility manager put in a request to our region to relocate our two 9964's to where the 5530's are since they were out of service much of the time. He go the standard answer back from the Region, "Sorry, no money". I spoke with Tom Lintner, the new ATO-120 and he informed me that the decision memorandum by Ron Morgan, Monte Belgar and Stanley Rivers, AAF-l, I mentioned had not been signed, and that there were apparently some additional problems in getting it signed. So, I'll try to see what I can find out and let you know. Once again it seems FSS issues keep getting shoved aside, or changed for the worse. The new FSS Division, ATO-300, is supposed to become effective March 1, 1998. Hopefully, then our issues will get the proper attention. I hope whomever they choose for the new Division Manager has a lot of gumption, they are going to need it!

The OASIS Program has been moving along somewhat according to schedule. The schedule still calls for testing in ACY early this summer and installation in SEA in late summer. Over the recent months, I have indicated that OASIS may fall short in our expectations in terms of some of the functions available. We have presented our concerns to management (see last months newsletter). I want to point out there is a distinction between a different way to accomplish the function, automating the function and not addressing the function. I know there are roomers abound, however I suggest we wait until the completion of the testing in ACY before we draw specific conclusions, then we will take appropriate action.

To refresh, the purpose of OASIS is to replace MlFC. Under the current OASIS Program, MlFC will be replaced by OASIS workstations in the present consoles. Currently, the OASIS workstation consists of one CPU, one keyboard, one mouse and two 17 inch monitors. This equipment will be installed in the present consoles. Harris will modify the present consoles to install OASIS. Harris will not interfere with other equipment in the console (ICSS, etc). As you can see this will create some difficulties in the retro fit. The current OASIS Program will not address the deficiencies in the Human Factors aspect in our current consoles.

Obviously, this is of great concern. We are fortunate to have Suzanne on board with her expertise in the Human Factors field.

The agency seems to have a true desire to address the Human Factors aspect and there is an attempt to replace the present consoles concurrently with the installation of OASIS. One important fact as we continue, is to realize that the Oasis Program provides funding for replacement of MlFC, there are no funds identified for console replacement. No fiends for research, travel or console replacement.

So where are we?

After months of searching for in-house sources that would be of help, the ACY Tech Center was brought on board. These are the same folks that worked on the STARS console. ACY Tech Center has considerable research and documentation for consoles available. Further, the ACY Tech Center has agreed to provide research on the present deficiencies ofthe current consoles. The plan is to visit M1V, MIA and SEA. The goal is to provide documentation of the present deficiencies. The study should be completed by the printing of this article. This documentation will be used as the basis for defining a need. Now the task is to find funding for console replacement. This is our challenge. Due to the lead tithe needed in the procurement process, the goal to replace the consoles concurrently with the installation of OASIS may be slipping through our hands. The OASIS Program group is working on securing funding for console replacement. As part of our action plan, we should first allow the agency to address the issue. I believe if we have no identified funding source by the end of February, we, the Union, will begin contacts with upper management in the agency. Keeping in mind the compressed time frames, if we have no success with the agency, we will pursue means outside the agency, the administration/congress. I believe we should feel comfortable with this approach, we have a just cause. By forcing the agency to address Human Factors, we not only protect ourselves, we reduce the probability of future expenditures for not addressing the issue. Politically, this is a win-win and failure to support this position will result in some hard questions.

First of all, in the next millennium the increase in air traffic, dwindling resources, and technological advances will necessitate increased automation. All too often our first reaction is: "Well, we're becoming servants of the machine!" The fact is, however, that automation will result in increased service and safety, to more people, for less overall expense.

Currently flight plan information must be manually passed between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Around the year 2000 both Canada and Mexico will begin using automated flight plan processing equipment. Both countries have decided to be "ICAO compliant". What does this mean? Data passed between machines must contain a certain, minimum amount of information.

Here's the rub. ICAO uses several different types of information not required on U.S. domestic or NAS (National Airspace System) flight plans. These differences consist of:

The NAATS Board of Directors meeting took place Jan 6-8 in Silver Springs Maryland.

This BOD meeting was one of the standard four meetings that take place each year. This meeting was not unique, except that we are rapidly approaching the most important negotiations with the FAA since the "Bruce Henry Era". Each of the upcoming meetings will have an incredible impact on you and your families future.

Personally for me, visiting the BOD meeting was an important opportunity since I had missed the national conference in Las Vegas. Although I was represented at Las Vegas by my coworkers who went, I wished to see our NAATS leadership in action and see in what direction they are taking our option. I let the BOD know I would write about the meeting to share with other members.

First, I want to give credit where credit is due. The Board met all three days and didn't play around. Each day began at 8 am and lasted past 6:45 the first day and at least to 5 p.m. each of the other two days. The meeting broke only for a few short breaks and a 45 minute lunch. As an observer, it was easy to tell that this board had been together for a while. The group dynamics were interesting to say the least. The one thing I was impressed about was the ability of the Directors to move from one heated issue to another without letting the previous issue and disagreements keep them from proceeding down the agenda (and there were several heated subjects discussed).

A positive result of the meeting was the creation of a Public Relations Team that would coordinate Media, Political and User Group contacts. The BOD approved the guidelines for what the PR Team would sell...but voted down a motion tying NAATS negotiations guidelines to the PR teams guidelines.

Another positive is that the BOD is sending out an Advisory Referendum to query members about whether they want pay bands or uniform pay. This Referendum for input from the membership resulted from the National Conference in Las Vegas, where an overwhelming majority of attendees indicated that they wanted a level pay structure for Flight Service. There was a strong debate on this issue. Even though an understanding of sorts has been reached with the FAA about this issue Wally Pike and Mac both said that if the membership and BOD wanted to head in another direction they had no problem in advising the FAA that the Union was backing out of pay bands.

Several things that I observed or heard during the BOD were disturbing to me:

"SOME" Directors believe that the union members who attended the National Conference in Las Vegas did not truly represent the bargaining unit, and that their opinions should not effect the decisions of the BOD. This feeling was not shared by all Directors. I would encourage you to find out how your director feels about this, especially since they are making key decisions that effect all of us.

Several times throughout the meeting, and especially in side bar conversations, most of the directors expressed the same idea WE NEED TO HAVE A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF FLIGHT SERVICE! However, when it came to facing some of the toughest issues the BOD could not get past their differences. This division on the BOD, while assuring that that the issues are getting discussed from more than one angle, is causing them to delay many decisions. Moving slowly appears to be playing into the FAA's hands. As we become a smaller and smaller union, we become less and less powerful...and less and less able to provide our customers with the services they need. As we provide a more generic product, we become easier to replaced by outside sources. You may not like the various visions of Flight Service I heard from the directors. Some appeared ready to throw in the towel on even providing Pilot Weather briefings in the near future. A couple saw us in Centers within 15 years. > Another disturbing piece of news is that even though we are entering both contract and pay negotiations shortly, our chief negotiator, Wally Pike is stepping down from the negotiator position to run for another office. Wally seemed confident that there are talented enough people available to fill the position. However, there has been no move yet toward getting someone else into Wally's position. That decision needs to be made ASAP and the new negotiator should be 'among" with Wally, preparing for the upcoming negotiations.

There appears to be little NFP success with Management at the highest levels. Check that... there appears to be NO true Partnership at all on the highest levels, at least from what I heard and observed during the BOD.

The bottom line is that the BOD is composed of FPLs, like you and me, who were elected to office. They are, for the most part, doing the best they can to get us what they think is the best deal while dealing with management's delays and inconsistencies. However, your Regional Directors vision may be completely different another Regional Directors, and different from your own vision of what's best for Flight Service. Several Directors seemed anxious to get input about what the members truly want...other directors seemed less interested. It is our responsibility to let our directors know how we feel about the direction we're taking. I would encourage anyone who can do so, to attend the BOD meetings.

This is an election year...for those members who have a long-term horizon in this career...it's time to get involved. Only through strong Union leadership and negotiations can we look forward to a new influx of Flight Service Controllers and a continuing ability to serve our customers in the fixture.