FLIGHT SERVICE VISION STATEMENT, DRAFT 1.5.5

by Dan Hart & Ron McKinnis,
NAATS Regional Coordinators

The following is a work in progress, under the leadership of the authors, to develop our own views on the future of Flight Service. Please send comments to NAATS HQ or to the authors by May 15. Thanks for your consideration and assistance.

Premises.

As federal employees, we believe that some functions of society are best served by government. NAATS (the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists) believes that the nature of the services provided by Flight Service Controllers who operate the Nation's Flight Service option (safety of flight, emergency services, explanation of weather, explanation of air traffic procedures, etc.), demand that the Federal Government through the FAA continue to play a direct role in this critical area for the foreseeable future. We further believe that while establishing a dollar value for each of these services is difficult, the expertise and experience of the Flight Service controllers makes them a unique asset to the Nation's aviation system, and particularly to General Aviation.

As a union, we are responsible for furthering the goals of our members, and representing them to the FAA, to political bodies, and to other groups. We strive to accomplish this by trying to reduce the adverse impact of any actions of the FAA that are detrimental to our members either collectively or individually. By definition, that includes responding to the intentions of the FAA. Equally important is the goal of enhancing our members' interest through lobbying for a political climate that is beneficial to them and the public they serve. The service that we provide to the people of this country can be defined as providing for the safety of the airways for the flying public.

Over the past decade, the decision of the FAA to change to a structure of 61 the Automated Flight Service Stations instead of more than 300 smaller facilities has resulted in a reduction of services provided to our users. In many instances, services are more difficult to access by the public. In addition, we have largely lost the face-to-face interaction which was a hallmark of critical safety and service to the flying public.

For example, as a result of the loss of direct contact with the flying public, our service to Air Carrier operators has become very limited. Because of the limited services provided, and the inflexibility imposed by the present system, Air Carrier operators and larger commercial operators have chosen to obtain or provide these required services themselves.

In Alaska, Air Carriers get more services from the Flight Service system than in the lower Continental 48 and Hawaii because the FAA has not restricted the FSS system as it has in the lower 48 and Hawaii due to the special and unique needs of Alaska.

The FAA has and is continuing to personalize services to the users of our products. One of the original premises of the automated concept - and the reduction to 61 facilities - was an increase of efficiency. The concept in its present form has only marginally increased efficiency, but at a considerable cost: the automation concept has resulted in the removal of personalized service, and one-to-one accountability.

The public does not like the result as has been shown in numerous surveys and reports in aviation journals. There must be a concerted effort to reverse the process of anonymity. As computerized information becomes increasingly available, and as traffic continues to increase (both commercial and general) the need for close personal contact between the pilot and the Flight Service Controller will continue to grow. NAATS supports the return of personalized service for the users with an increase of efficiency. These two goals are not mutually exclusive!

The Union has had only limited success over the past years in getting the FAA to increase the stature or to recognize the importance of Flight Service Controllers. We have had more success in taking our plight directly to the people and to our elected officials. The users have clearly indicated that they see the functions that we provide as being important.

Duties

Flight Service responsibilities that have been articulated by the FAA (formally) and users (informally through experience) are as follows:

Flight Service Controllers currently provide pilot briefing services, en route communications, VFR and IFR search and rescue services, lost aircraft and aircraft in unusual and/or emergency situations assistance, and ATC clearances. They originate and track NOTAM's, broadcast weather and NAS information, process IFR and VFR flight plans, take weather observations, issue airport advisories and traffic advisories in the vicinity of movement areas through the use of air/ground communications, perform customs notifications, monitor NAVAID's, sequence IFR traffic for centers, handle SVFR operations, and provide coordination between other air traffic facilities and airways facilities (AF), etc.

Responsibilities

It historically has been the responsibility of the Flight Service Controller to prepare a pilot for flight. Various functions have to be performed. The Flight Service Controller has, as a primary function, the goal of preparing a pilot to perform a particular flight, supporting that flight by updating various types of information, and performing other duties that the aviation community deems appropriate.

Pilots have to know the feasibility and the safety parameters of a particular flight. Is the weather conducive to the flight? Are NAVAID's available that the pilot will need? What particular ATC and FAA services will be required? What services are available to the pilot along his or her route of flight and at the destination? Is there a better or more efficient way to perform the flight?

We believe that in the future, our responsibilities should encompass everything that has to do with flight that is not directly provided by Flight Standards, or by tower/center personnel.

Structure

Facility size is, and will continue to be, irrelevant to the mission performed by our members for the people of this country. Nevertheless, it must be understood that a minimum number of personnel is required at all times, since we must operate in a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year environment.

Personnel currently filling the less desirable facilities need to have some incentive to remain at those facilities, rather than transferring to another. Since there is presently no incentive offered to staff these hard-to-staff facilities under the current grade, pay and work requirements, other solutions are required for effective service from a business perspective. Why not put the controllers where the public really has a need for them, and not just where the building to contain them exists? If the public determines that there is a need, then the personnel used to staff these needed facilities should be appropriately compensated and provided with appropriate working conditions.

As technology continues to develop it will be increasingly feasible to put people at locations where there is a significant general aviation interest. These could be "storefront" locations that are only open and staffed during times of anticipated use. These could be portable, and except for remoted frequencies, contain a full range of services, and a complete database just as if they were located at the parent facility. Any and all data that is available at one facility would be instantly available to any other controller. Local expertise or experience is valued by the users, and the information that can be provided to users based on that experience, is one of the most important commodities that we can provide.

Mission

The future mission of Flight Service will be to provide any and all relevant information needed, or as requested by a pilot, to successfully accomplish a safe and efficient flight. This will include information that is typically provided by large companies to their air crews. This should include hard copy information that has been interpolated for use for a particular flight parameter. Also included will be all types of flight following information (hazardous area reporting, etc.), and flight plans.

Flight Service Controllers will take a more active role in ensuring separation of aircraft under certain circumstances. This may include "owning" airspace for use during periods of IFR weather for expeditious SVFR operations. This may also include sequencing of IFR traffic for other control facilities. By doing this, airspace would be used more efficiently, and pilots would enjoy the benefits of that increased efficiency. In many instances, towers and centers (NATCA) have given up certain areas of control, and Flight Service should move into or include these areas as our own.

Mechanisms for Change

As technology develops for the aviation industry, Flight Service will continue to be the entity that converts or translates this technology into a usable format for pilots. This implies that the job complexity of the Flight Service Controller will of necessity increase.

Technology will also increase the available range of services that a Flight Service controller is able to provide. By using instantaneous communications with other facilities and controllers, the service provided to the public will be enhanced. The interpersonal relationship that was historically

available between Flight Service controllers and the public will need to be reestablished after having been allowed to deteriorate over the past few years. The current political climate allows us into areas that have long been closed to us by the FAA. When we as a Union take our arguments for continued involvement to the users, most often we have their support. Many times we have shown the users and Congress that we are available to give a valuable service to the people of this country at a very cost efficient price.

The FAA is allowing the numbers of bargaining unit members to decrease over time. This leaves more work to be performed by fewer people. We have traditionally shown that we are adaptable, and that we have been able to do more work with fewer resources. We have reached a manpower "bottom" however, and to continue to provide the quality that has come to be expected of us, we need a commitment from the agency to provide us with a pipeline of new people and adequate technology to actually provide the needed services to the public. When the FAA refuses to backfill personnel as attrition takes place, they are setting the stage for a self-fulfilling prophesy: demand will be reduced as the number of available Flight Service Controllers is reduced through attrition and retirement, because the public will not be able to contact the remaining Flight Service Controllers in a timely manner. And as demand decreases, the continuing policy of attrition will be spuriously justified.

Training

FSS controllers will need to enhance interpersonal skills with the goal of achieving zero dissatisfaction from the primary users. Training will be reestablished as a priority for Flight Service controllers. The goal of having a continuously well educated and motivated workforce diverse in abilities and able to embrace new duties and responsibilities with minimum difficulties will be realized.

Flight Service controllers will also be trained in teaching techniques. The goal will be to work with various user groups to train and educate pilots in the use of the NAS. This could include training students and new pilots in basic weather understanding. We could work in concert with the AOPA's mentor program so that pilots would have an understanding of FAA procedures and weather situations. Certain Flight Service controllers have expertise in areas of interest to the public, and the FAA should make this expertise available to those who request it. The goal would be to promote flying by training general aviation pilots. General aviation is the ultimate source of most commercial pilot training and is the backbone of aviation in this country.

Interaction with the Public

We should remove the name "automated" from flight service stations at some time in the near future. All facilities should provide a complete range of services. It would promote good public relations and show the public that once again, "service" is our middle name. We need to advertise our services to any who would use them. We are able to quickly address the needs of our users, with a minimum of bureaucratic delay of necessary changes. We should have as a goal the ability to address the needs of all users: general aviation, military, air taxi and small commercial operators, as well as air carriers. We have a dedicated, well trained and easily adaptable workforce that has a history and ethic of public service.

Conclusions

We must always remember that we are people serving people. Technology is only a means to accomplish that task. Human interaction is the secret behind the safety record that we have had over the past years. For example, automated weather observations have a place, but they can never fully replace what a human sees and reports. Pilots always prefer information in the form of what an observer can actually see over cold, impersonal, incomplete mechanical reports.

The complexity of the work being performed by Flight Service Controllers is going to increase over time due to changes in technology, and what is required by the public. We do not know what equipment will be available in the future, but we must be able to use the latest and most efficient equipment to deliver the best possible service to the public.

If Flight Service Controllers are allowed to have the proper equipment, the training, and freedom from unnecessary regulation, we can compete successfully with any in the private sector who might wish to take over our functions. We can make Flight Service work for the people of this country.

Goals

1. Better educate our members on the importance of customer satisfaction; find a mechanism to insure that we are providing what the public wants to the greatest extent possible.

2. Find a mechanism to provide "continuing education" to our members. A highly educated and trained workforce can only be beneficial to the long term existence of our bargaining unit.

3. Find appropriate mechanisms to insure that there are new members coming into our bargaining unit. It is vital that we accomplish this task.

4. Find mechanisms and then use them to lobby to achieve goals that will ensure the long term existence of Flight Service.

5. Ensure that Flight Service Controllers are able to provide personalized service to our users. We must always be aware that we are "service providers." We do this in an area where it is difficult to measure a "dollar value" for the services that we provide. This does not make the services less important, but perhaps more important. It also means that the focus at all times must be on safety.

6. Insure that our members have the technology at their disposal with which to do their jobs. Only if we insure that this hardware and software are available will we be able to provide the services that the public wants from our members. In this era of rapid change in the manner that information is provided, it is vital that we "keep up" - in fact, we must be leaders in this endeavor in order to continue to provide the public with our most important product: safety.