Member's Forum

Letters/articles I receive from members in response to current events or issues (And some nostalgia!). 

Index

Who Are They Gonna Turn To?

I had an interesting call at work the other day and thought you would all enjoy the story.

The phone rang at about 10am and the voice on the other end said, "this is going to sound really weird, but..." I love it when I get that preface.

He went on to explain he was a pilot calling from the D.C. area and had just logged onto his Flight Explorer program to check some weather. (Flight Explorer program tracks IFR flights, among other things) What truly alarmed him was that his airplane callsign came up on the program on an active IFR flight plan, currently over the Puget Sound area heading to Sitka.

To say the least, this was a highly concerned pilot, U.S. citizen, etc... Obviously post 9/11 and more recently the 'Special Security Alert' that was thrust at the flying public has given a situation like this a sobering concern.

There was no doubt this was not this pilot's airplane. His plane, a PA24 was on the ground in Maryland, while his callsign was being used by a C310, flying at that time in the Seattle area. To me, this is exactly the kind of information the FAA has asked these pilots to be alert for. Would you agree??

Apparently alertness is all they require, because this pilot attempted to call the FBI. He was transferred to a voice mail and subsequently hung up on. Next he thought the perfect place to call would be the "Hot Line". Not so. They told him to call the TSA. Duh, of course that's who he should call. That's the whole idea of this newly formed agency, right? No, the TSA said the pilot should call the Hot Line.

He was so frustrated with the run around and total lack of concern, he called someone he knew would be interested, Flight Service. (especially since they were headed our way!)

End of story, all ended up well. The callsign was being used by accident and it was all straightened out.

Deb Townsend - SIT FSS

Return to index

Terrorist in government -- A76

The Southern Region received its A76 briefing yesterday in Atlanta. I attended the briefing, along with Tom Forte, MIA, Jim Reppin, ANB, and Karey Hall, MCN, all FacReps. We challenged Grant Thorton, contractor, and the FAA with numerous questions in hopes of uncovering the darkest of details. We did not fail in that endeavor. This is what I perceive to be the bottom line; A76 has but two possible outcomes:

1.  FSS will be contracted out to a private company.
   
   � Our employees will have a 'right of first refusal.� Meaning the new contractor must offer employment to the current employees before seeking to secure other sources. However, that will be at a rate of pay determined by the new employer, as stipulated in the winning contract. Substantially lower, no security of benefits.
   
   � The contract will be awarded to the lowest bidder, not based on quality of service. It will not ensure that the new contractor will provide the same types / levels of services.
    

2. The government will retain the services under the Most Effective Organization, MEO, concept, which is a NEW ORGANIZATION.
   
   � The new MEO will not be Flight Service.
   
   � The new MEO will not protect your pay. Historically, organizations taken down by A76 that ends up as a new MEO have an average wage decrease of two pay grades from base pay. No one knows if that is based on current or possible future salaries that may become effective during the A76 process.
   
   � Existing Collective Bargaining Agreements will not bind the new MEO.

To me there is no difference between a new Contractor, private sector, and the new MEO, government retained. They are both NEW ORGANIZATIONS.

No rights to previously negotiated pay and no rights to previously negotiated contracts can mean only one thing:

THERE IS NO UNION

A76 must be stopped. There is no acceptable outcome by participating in A76 for Flight Service. We have to reach our politicians, local, state, and national immediately. If you are not a NAATS Union member, your job must be unimportant to you. Please join with us and help save yourself from the good ole� folks supporting A76, the FAA.

Dave Hoover
NAATS, Southern Regional Director

Return to index

Why Am I on Hold?

REALITY OF SHORT STAFFING AND THE ABANDONED CALL RATE
Or
WHY AM I ON HOLD

Flight Service Controllers understand clearly they are paid to serve our aviation customers first and in return, we hope the FAA will serve our needs. For the first part, I believe we are giving our customers outstanding service as witnessed in recent crisis and unusual situations, i.e., Y2K, Seattle earthquake, and 911. As for the second part, I believe we are getting the shaft from a variety of government and FAA sources.

One of the deceptions we have been fighting is flawed cost saving scenarios published in the Nov 1997 FAA document �Development and Applications of Performance Metrics For The National Airspace System�. The economic assessments and quantified avoided staffing costs in that document are not detailed, quantifiable, substantiated, and certainly not credible. But, like many other government documents, I believe key groups have embraced this data and are using it to drive our staffing numbers down. The document was addressing productivity gains through OASIS. Perhaps you remember our �Lead the Fleet� replacement equipment for Model 1 the FAA promised us four years ago. This equipment would help us serve general aviation better. However, to this date, the FAA has been dragging their feet and only now have they approved OASIS for the first 25 sites. Fact is, we only have two functional OASIS facilities, Seattle AFSS and just recently Anderson AFSS was brought on line.

I find it interesting that Britain�s Parliament has recently slammed their country�s National Air Traffic Services (NATS) for failing to provide the benefits promised when the semi-privatized system was set up. Parliament was even more incredulous that NATS was considering reducing the number of safety-critical staff because of its current economic problems. AOPA President Phil Boyer said� �Around the world, we�re seeing that privatized or corporatized air traffic control systems are just not able to withstand economic fluctuations. And yet here in the United States, President Bush has declared that ATC is not an inherently governmental function, clearing the way for the government to farm-out safety to some sort of corporate entity.� This flies in the face of A76, not inherently governmental, but strangely we find ourselves fighting for bodies.

Our ever-decreasing staffing numbers has surpassed a minimum threshold to the point that we can no longer provide 100% service to our customers. Abandoned call rates in the 2% range are understood to be acceptable because there are factors out of our control, i.e., bogus calls from non-aviators. When a facility begins a trend to go above this number, the heat gets applied to local managers from the regional office. How facility management reacts to this is impacting our workforce on many levels. The FAA has chosen to allow our staffing to attrite despite general aviations desire to maintain and improve our services as stated in the General Aviation Summit meetings. The following is a list of reasons why we do not have sufficient staff on the floor to answer your calls.

REASONS WHY THE ABANDONED CALL RATE INCREASES
1) Temporary staff duties assigned. Many facilities have to endure a second FPL being taken off the floor for temporary staff duties or help with the Local Area Network (LAN) automation like keeping CRU-X operational. Management should assign this to a qualified operational supervisor (OPSUP) or get one qualified. What they have done is offer expensive out of facility training to an journeyman (FPL). This is typically only offered to one individual because of the expense involved. This individual then becomes so essential to management that operations are frequently forced to allow this person off the floor to accomplish their needs at the expense of operational staffing.

2) OPSUP/FPL on extended sick leave or medical disqualification. Let�s face it, many of us were hired right after the 1981 strike, we are an older work force and it has become necessary for us to use additional time off to recover from sicknesses. Additionally, medical disqualifications (DQ) are rampant and we have no control over the Flight Surgeon�s inflexibility. These DQ�s are many times lengthy and unnecessary.

3) OPSUP/FPL on Family and Medical Leave (FMLA). Because many of us are older, it has become necessary for us to take extra time to care for our parents and other family members when they become sick.

4) Increased OPSUP/FPL use of sick leave. Again, we are an older work force and as such, we are prone to incur sicknesses and injuries that we would have avoided when we were younger and healthier. The FAA has failed to provide the influx of younger controllers, the lifeblood of any organization.

5) FPL�s in the National Guard. We have many FPL�s in the Guard that are counted against our staffing who frequently are called to short-term duty for floods and fires, etc. This is in addition to their regular military leave and occasional schools.

6) FPL�s on details. The union that represents Flight service controllers, the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS) has several long term (one to three years) liaison and technical representative positions for qualified members in Washington D.C. Additionally there are many short-term details that the union needs representation on. These details are necessary and important to our option and the FAA has realized the value of having subject matter experts (SME�s) on these details.

7) Two or more FPL�s on a midwatch. Some facilities have been pressured by management to provide a schedule with 2 or more FPL�s on a mid when it cannot be supported or justified by traffic numbers. Their motive is to avoid paying overtime (OT). To my knowledge there are no OPSUP�s in our region that work mids, perhaps this is true of other regions as well. If OPSUP�s were required to work mids, it would free an FPL for the day shift and the Agency could save the 10% differential they pay for controller-in-charge (CIC). By forcing extra FPL bodies on the mid, management effectively robs the day shift of a needed FPL further compromising our ability to serve our customers. This could arguably be a safety issue.

8) OPSUP�s transferring traffic. Some OPSUP�s have been pressured by management to accept traffic from other facilities when that facility is already short. A recent example in our region was when Oakland AFSS crashed and Ranch Murieta AFSS accepted 100% of Oakland�s traffic that resulted in approximately 100 abandoned calls. This is a one-day spike and could easily be explained but the fact is, the numbers are counted in the aggregate. Some OPSUP�s are instructed to transfer traffic to avoid abandoned calls even when the negotiated parameters have not been met. I understand their desire to do so and we want to service the customers too. The dilemma is, how do we accomplish this fairly?

9) OPSUP�s not �plugging in.� Some managers have advised their OPSUP�s not to sign on an operational position when it gets busy. I understand this to some degree, it is their job to supervise, but the routine (or not so routine for many) job of ensuring needed breaks, lunch relief, position rotation, and shift changes could be accomplished more productively. FPL�s are routinely instructed to combine positions increasing their risk of compromising safety to get another briefer, why can�t management.

10) OPSUP�s reluctant to use overtime (OT) or compensatory (Comp) time. We have been told in the Western-Pacific region there is no OT money. We have been instructed that if OT is needed, we shall call the air traffic manager (ATM) first for approval. Western-Pacific AFSS�s were originally allotted a ridiculous average of $1,200 per facility (let�s see, �fuzzy math� tells me that gives us about 3 to 4 OT call outs). Generally what has been happening, is management is using a combination of 2 hour hold-over or call in before OT and swapping traffic. The new contract under �Watch Schedules� specifically allows the employer to determine when OT will be used. The list of alternatives may give management some relief. However, with our rapidly dwindling numbers, there may not be any available bodies left to call in!

11) Addition of local work intensive practices. Reno and Prescott are required to accept faxes from the Grand Canyon tour operators and input these flight plans into model one for activation and closure. This is a mandated program so the frequency and noise levels of aircraft operating in the Grand Canyon can be quantified. At Reno, this means 82 to 85 pages of faxes with multiple flight plans on average per day. So many faxes that we can no longer afford to buy paper and ink cartridges for the fax machine. There are also many facilities that take or augment weather observations. This position is normally combined and becomes extremely busy during frontal or thunderstorm activity. Yet, we sometimes get the �evil eye� when we find it necessary to take a few extra minutes to go outside and view the entire horizon as required.

12) Briefings taking longer.

a) Our briefings are subject to becoming longer. There is increased emphasis on ensuring every pilot is aware of any adverse NOTAM�s; takeoff or landing, or TFR�s; Presidential, fire or national security. The FAA finally agreed the national NOTAM system is not user friendly.

b) We have better weather products that help us give more detailed information, i.e., Doppler radar used to help pilots flight plan or avoid thunderstorms when airborne.

c) We are also taking more out of flight plan area briefings due to the MCI changeover, 866 numbers and transferring traffic. There are numerous safety related issues that have not been addressed if we are going to continue to do this. Not being familiar with topography, facility and NAVAID identifiers, what NOTAMS apply, etc., make briefings longer.

Our time on position is by far the most of any option. I would be hard pressed to find a tower or enroute facility that did not have a very liberal break policy or offered extended lunch breaks. We cannot determine when pilots will call, but at least we are signed on position. Our managers are being forced to do more with less and they are doing it on our backs. We have lost most of our alternate work schedules (AWS) in the WP region because management thinks there is less flexibility and it is the root of all evil. Other facilities in other regions find the AWS actually helps when managed correctly. We have reduced the number of FPL�s on prime time leave and we have endured numerous undesirable shift changes. We work with fewer bodies on the floor and get no respect for it. Most of the time there are not enough bodies to approve spot annual leave, take local FAM�s or request time off position for self-development, i.e., look at CBI�s. Awards are few and far between or nonexistent. I�m sure these are not the only aggravating issues. You don�t have to be a rocket scientist to see what�s wrong with this picture. Now throw in the mix our added angst over the FAA�s prolonged pay and contract negotiations and their attempt to devalue our service while sabotaging the negotiations. As if this were not enough, there are many contractors because of A76 (not inherently governmental) that want to get their fingers in the pie. The FAA�s demeaning and different treatment of flight service controllers insult me, but don�t expect me to hang my head. I know that what we do saves lives and promotes our national economy and while we do not separate traffic, our duties are none-the-less complicated, strenuous and critical to aviation safety.

Chuck Kuennen, Reno AFSS

Return to index

President's Closing Statement

The Chinese have a saying, �may you find yourself living in interesting times.� That certainly is our case at present.

We�re challenged on a number of fronts; compensation, staffing, OASIS all present areas of concern. The new Air Traffic Organization and its structure are undetermined at this time. Consolidation and contracting-out are persistent topics of discussion.

I submit, however, that these concerns also represent opportunities. We�ve discussed compensation and its implications. We�re working on a staffing agreement with Air Traffic that could encompass future evolvement for our bargaining unit. OASIS is in excellent hands with our Human Factors Team, one of our great success stories.

While the ATO is conceptually still up in the air, we do have an agreement to work it at the highest levels in the FAA. The ramifications of some of the joint structural decisions won�t be fully understood for years but they do allow us to better determine our own destiny. That destiny has to include a basic premise that we will embrace technology and make it work for us. SUAISE and IDS will allow us to provide services like Flight Monitoring that ensure our viability as an air traffic option.

At some point and time consolidation will have to be addressed. We can either have the end result dictated to us or we can proactively help determine the course to be taken. We�ve indicated our willingness to discuss consolidation but with the stipulation that it must result in additional compensation to the bargaining unit.

The talk of contracting out will not disappear and we must take it on. At this time the Agency feels that flight service, especially in-flight services, are inherently a governmental operation. This attitude can, of course, change tomorrow. The more we make ourselves essential to the operation of the NAS, the more arguments we create against contracting-out or privatization.

Our own people can hurt us. I�ve had members tell me that they don�t feel we can do the kind of work I�ve mentioned above and that somehow we�re limited in our abilities. If that attitude ever becomes prevalent then we�ve sealed our own doom.

Negativity to our customers can be another problem. Your efforts since 9/11 have been well documented as have our compensation and staffing problems. Throughout this time there have been relatively few legitimate pilot complaints but it only takes a few to destroy all the good will we can create with the user groups.

My consistent message to the Administrator is that flight service represents a vastly underutilized resource. We�re capable of performing many more essential duties than we�ve been allowed in the past. All we need is an opportunity to demonstrate our potential.

Thank you for coming and making our meeting such a success. I�ll see you during my facility visitations or next year in San Antonio.

Return to index

Invitation to Chat

There is a online group for NAATS members. Feel free to pass the information on to dues paying members only. We are slowly adding new members. It is an easy way for us to exchange information using email.

There are three options after you sign up, one email per post, collectives of emails, or web based only. Collectives are my favorite. Once signed in, you don't have to do anything unless you want, just read your email. No Spam.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NAATS

Take care. Thanks,
Dan
-------- ;)
Dan & Ruth Hart
P.O. Box # 5381
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-0381

Return to index

Good Faith Negotiations

Jan 6, 2002

Is there anyone that believes the FAA has negotiated in good faith with NAATS on pay and work rules?

After reading the newest IG Report on Consolidation, It appears the FAA might just want to drag this process out until our NAATS negotiating team accepts some version of a staffing reduction/consolidation plan.

That report addresses the fact that the FAA has contracts with NATCA and PASS which include staffing articles, protecting those units from any staffing reductions/consolidations. It goes on to clearly suggest that since the NAATS negotiations are not final, the FAA has only our option to plunder to attempt budgetary reforms.

I strongly believe in the pay comparability concept, but whatever pay plan we eventually ratify, it should be RETROACTIVE. In E-Mail Update #33 dated March 10, 2000 Wally stated: " We have to be prepared to stay the course, however. In the meantime please remember that we have ensured that no bargaining unit member will lose any compensation during these negotiations and that any agreement will be retroactive to October 1999."

Then Don McLennan's Pay Bulletin #17, June 29th, 2000, he referred to the latest FAA proposal after 4 weeks of negotiations as "somewhat less than their agreement with the PASS bargaining unit. This offer would have required the NAATS bargaining unit to forfeit any retroactive pay and would result in less take home pay beginning October 2000."

PLEASE don't give that part away. They should pay the penalty for their (in)actions.

I'll donate some RDO's for informational picketing, too.

Craig Marcus - LAN AFSS

Return to index

Flight Service to the rescue

This is a follow-up to our conversation this morning regarding the efforts of Flight Service during a time of national tragedy.

I was at GNV AFSS to witness the following:

1. GNV AFSS went into a lock-down status upon being notified of Emergency Readiness Level Charlie. All non-essential personnel were release. ALL 2152 ATC were required to remain on duty, essential to the NAS environment.

2. Other 2152 ATC personnel were contacted, briefed and ordered to remain at home and accessible to telephone contact for further instructions.

3. Those 2152 ATCs on duty were responsible for contacting all airports in our flight plan area. Instructions pertaining to restricting aircraft departures and provisions for airports to remain accessible so that general aviation pilots already airborne could land was provided.

4. Air-to-ground contact with those pilots currently flying was essential in clearing the skies across American. Flight Service was the eyes and ears for establishing contact with VFR air traffic services.

5. NOTAMs were issued by the hundreds regarding airport restrictions, NAVAID outages, etc.

6. Flight Service 2152 ATC directly coordinated with Airway Facility personnel in shutting down the NAS NAVAID system.

Clearly, Flight Service demonstrated a high level of professionalism and efficiency during a national crisis. It is without question that Flight Service provided Air Traffic Services to expedite the safety and efficiency of Air Traffic Control and was instrumental in furthering NATIONAL SECURITY.

I believe these elements of performance demonstrate that Flight Service is an essential Air Traffic Control option deserving of a equitable pay plan with our brothers and sisters of the NATCA bargaining unit.

Thank you for your time,

Dave Hoover
Southern Regional Coordinator

Return to index

Deja Vu

Hi John: Was just browsing through your NAATS news items, and was impressed by the old deja vu situation all over again. Yesterday was the 45th anniversary of my starting with the FAA at the Saginaw ATCS (GS-5--$3670 pa). What a let-down after being a RADAR controller with the USAF! Anyway, over a period of four years I was fortunate to reach OEX as an "Allied" instructor (no, there couldn't even be equity at the instructional level!)

It was there that we began to make some real inroads into the "ATC" dynasty. I was always surprised that there was such animosity towards the lowly "station" types, since most of the dynasty had started their reign within the "communications" option. As instructors (5 in the beginning--1960) we were able to publicize the merits of the FSS option, and in just a few months saw the membership of NAATS climb from the middle hundreds to over 3,000.

Those were heady days as we literally confronted top echelon FAA types head-on, and surprisingly enough, often times gained some visible results. I remember a trip to DCA when I had to single handedly meet with the Deputy Administrator. I was scared to death, but tried not to show it. ha (And it worked out to our good!)

I remember the fights about all the same things you are still fighting about i.e. staffing, pay, equipment, equity, etc. We couldn't get the FAA to give us war surplus DF equipment without a protracted fight, and then the attitude of the hierarchy was that even if we had it we weren't competent to operate it! (Thereby requiring the creation of "courses" at the Academy to "teach" all the 4,000+ novices in the field the finer points of direction finding using a plywood(!!!) simulator, if you can believe it.)

Oh well, I have rambled on long enough. Just thought I'd bring up a few items from the bemoaned "past", to show you current FSSers how not much has changed in the last 40+ years. Keep up the fight.

All the best,
Dave Hahn NAATS Pres. 1962-63

Return to index

To Whom It May Concern

I did not really appreciate the letter I received this week from Ms. Garvey. We have Been Working now for over four (4) years to get a new contract and a comparable pay raise. Is all she can do is try and pat us on the back for the work that we did during this crisis. 

It is my view that without Flight Service these past two (2) weeks the FAA would have fallen on there collective faces.

I hate to take advantage of other peoples hardships and sorrows but if the government can bail out airlines that have been over booking and charging outlandish prices then they can come up with the money to give us comparable pay with the other option.

Norman B. Buckallew
ATCS DeRidder AFSS

Return to index

Seattle Earthquake

Here is a brief rundown of what occurred at Seattle AFSS during and after the earthquake.

The earthquake began at approximately 10:54 PST. According to the scientists it lasted about 45 seconds. Some people evacuated the building, some were under desks and consoles and some just kept on working. We have on recordings specialists saying things like "standby by for a second, we're having an earthquake." Through monitoring the recordings and obtaining anecdotal information from people that were present at no time was service interrupted, except for a brief period (a minute at most) when the ACD system failed.

When the shaking stopped, everybody returned to work. Information was gathered, regarding towers and airports and their operational capabilities, Twenty-one NOTAMS were issued during the first hour after the quake. These included NOTAMS for tower/airport/runway closures and frequency outages. Inflight and flight watch continued to provide air-ground radio services to those pilots who were airborne and looking for a place to land.

Boeing tower when they became semi-operational had 2 frequencies one for local and one for ground. They asked if we would provide clearance delivery so they wouldn't suffer from frequency congestion and their line to approach control was "weak". It is now 9 days after the quake and we are still providing clearance delivery for Boeing tower.

NAATS should be very proud of the the bargaining unit members at Seattle. This news should be shared with anyone who will listen. I hope this will give you the information you need to show the importance of the FSS option. We know how to do our own job and some of the functions of the other options. I doubt it would work the other way around.

Alice Haines,
FacRep Seattle AFSS

Return to index