We anticipate that we will need representatives for both A76 and Performance Management Systems (PMS) workgroups. If you are interested in either of these, please send your name and a resume, including pertinent qualifications, to NAATS Headquarters. I will provide more details on this as they develop.

Bill Dolan, Chief Negotiator

Bargaining Changes in Conditions of Employment : Substance or I & I?

When a manager or supervisor decides to make a change in a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, an obligation to bargain with the union will most likely arise. Conditions of employment are those personnel policies, practices and other workplace matters that affect working conditions. Such bargaining obligations are common as many workplace changes affect working conditions in one way or another. Facility representatives will become involved in mid-term negotiations concerning these changes in the workplace.
When managers propose a change in a condition of employment, one of two types of negotiation can result:

1. Negotiations on the decision itself may be required if requested by the union. This is commonly called substance bargaining, or;

2. Negotiations on the effects of the change on bargaining unit employees, referred to as impact & implementation bargaining or I & I.

Whenever a supervisor or manager wants to make a change that affects a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, the union must be given reasonable advance notice of the proposed change and the opportunity to request bargaining before management implements the change. Management is required to notify the union of the proposed change. It is up to the union to request a briefing or bargaining in accordance with Article 9 of our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). If you do enter into bar-gaining, you will need to determine whether you may bargain the substance of the decision itself (whether the proposed change can and should be made), or the impact and implementation surrounding management�s decision to make the proposed change (how the change will be made).

Substance Bargaining

Substance bargaining is required, if requested by the union, for those changes that do not involve one of the management rights as contained in 5 USC 7106. Some examples of management rights are the right to determine the mission, budget, organization, number of employees and internal security practices of the agency, and the right to hire, assign, discipline and retain employees. If the change management wants to implement is not one of the retained management rights, you have the right to bargain, upon request, over whether management will implement the change itself. This would be the substance of the proposed change.

For example, if there is an established practice of allowing a television to be placed in the break-room for employee use during breaks and lunch periods and management notifies the union that it has decided to discontinue the practice and remove the TV, that change would be fully negotiable including the issue of whether the change will be made at all.

I & I Bargaining

Even when management is exercising its retained rights, there can be a bargaining obligation. Impact and implementation (I & I) bargaining arises when management decides to make a change that affects a condition of employment in an area where management retains exclusive decision-making authority. The union cannot bargain over whether management will make the particular change, but they can bargain over how management will exercise its rights to make the change. The law defines this as bargaining appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by the exercise of a management right. In this type of bargaining, the union has the right to make proposals designed to alleviate the foreseeable adverse impact on bargaining unit employees. A union proposal may not seriously impede the exercise of a management right. If the union�s proposal is found to excessively interfere with a management right and it may be declared non-negotiable by management. Matters of negotiability may be appealed to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) for a determination.

Let�s say management wants to change the existing number of personnel assigned to the mid-shift. The question of whether or not this new procedure will be used would fall under management�s right to assign work. However, there could be any number of negotiable proposals addressing appropriate arrangements for employees who might be adversely affected by the change. Until the agency satisfies its bargaining obligation the change cannot be implemented.

Exceptions to the Bargaining Requirement

If the issue in question has already been negotiated into an agreement between management and the union, there is no requirement to renegotiate every time something occurs. Essentially, management is not changing anything; they are implementing already agreed upon provisions. That�s why every time management makes a decision on normal leave or overtime situations they are not required to negotiate leave or overtime procedures with the union.

Sometimes the impact of exercising a management right is so small it can be said to be de minimus and therefore not create a bargaining obligation. For example, you might assign an employee to accomplish an additional duty, such as distributing new sectional charts and manuals to all operating positions, that is usually done by someone else who is out sick. This relatively brief change in duties would likely have no more than a de minimus impact on the employee�s working conditions. The de minimus standard is a tricky legal area so you need to be careful.

Regardless of the type of bargaining, for most situations management must conclude negotiations prior to implementing the change. In rare instances, changes can be implemented prior to completing bargaining where there is a bona fide operational necessity. Operational necessity is normally understood to be an action, often safety or security related, necessary to carry out the agency�s mission during emergencies or other extraordinary or compelling situations. Operational necessity is not to be invoked as a way to avoid bargaining. A management assertion that a particular matter does not require bargaining can often produce unnecessary conflict and hostility in the labor-management relationship.

Facility representatives need to be aware of their rights and obligations to properly represent their bargaining unit members. If you have questions or feel you need more training contact your director and remember, get all negotiated agreements in writing. The law requires written agreements at the request of either party.
 

Liaison Updates

ATP Report

Scott Malon, ATP Liaison -- [email protected]

NOTAMs

Progress is continuing toward automating the delivery method of NOTAMs to the Towers/TRACONs. Each AT facility is being outfitted with a program that automatically receives all NOTAM-D information applicable to that facility�s area of responsibility. This automation will take the place of our current requirement to call the facility with each NOTAM, unless an equipment malfunction requires an interim need to use the manual method of dissemination. NOTAM-Ls will also be automatically transmitted -- procedures are being worked to ease the process for the FSS Controller.

Progress is also continuing, although in a more excruciatingly painful manner, towards fielding the NSTS (NOTAM Short Term Solution). This system outfits each operational position with a 19" flat-panel monitor, used to display NOTAMs returned back to the position as a result of a M1FC command. This NOTAM display makes use of categorization, colorization, and spacing/indentation techniques to ease the FSS Controller�s ability to brief the pilot in today�s overwhelming post 9/11 NOTAM environment. Additionally, ICAO and Military NOTAMs will be available by �VM� request, viewed instantly, as opposed to the tedious and oftentimes-unreliable request/reply method used today. One more benefit is that NOTAM-Ls will be displayed along with the applicable NOTAM-Ds on a �VM� request, eliminating the need to search your view sequence for the needed data. The �excruciatingly painful� reference points towards the �roadblocks� that seem to be constructed daily, delaying the �Short Term� goal for field deployment. While several key program managers (ATP & ARU -- Aviation Traffic & Weather Systems Development) appear to be in support, those involved on the �front-line� of the effort are not following suit. Even more frustrating is the complete disregard/ lack of understanding conveyed by those in AUA (Air Traffic Systems Development), who believe that we can delay the �Short Term� delivery and just wait around until OASIS is nationally deployed (last information indicated 12 facilities by the end of FY03). ARS Liaison Jim Perkins and I continue to press on -- stay tuned for more information.

ADDS

The Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) is a web-based product jointly developed by several entities, including the Aviation Weather Center (AWC), to make digital and graphical weather information available to the aviation community. In November 2001, we conducted a test with several ATCSs in Princeton (PNM) AFSS, evaluating the benefit of interaction between our FSS controllers and the pilot. While definite shortcomings were identified, the overall concept of controller/pilot interaction was considered positive. Because of this, we are now in discussion with representatives from several user groups, in addition to ATP representatives, to look into further testing of ADDS and it�s value as a �tool� in providing weather information to the pilot. Feel free to visit the ADDS web page at http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds/info and provide me with any ideas/comments you might have regarding FSS use of this product.

SUA/ISE

The Special Use Airspace / Inflight Service Enhancement program is being managed out of ATP-200, the Special Operations division. Several weeks have gone by without any perceived movement towards national deployment, mandated to be complete by FY03. The migration of the program to the national level has been riddled with problems, with issues not limited to equipment procurement and bandwidth limitations. I have voiced my concern that, without clear goals and benchmarks, the target deadline for national deployment will not be met. One problem is that the contractor assigned to work on the SUA/ISE program at the national level has been busy on another project of �higher� priority. I am engaging those in authority to assist in �re-focusing� the efforts around the program.

ARS Report

Jim Perkins, ARS Liaison -- [email protected]

Currently in ARS and ARU there are about a dozen programs that I am actively involved in, with several others that I try to keep an eye on for any NAATS impact. Several of these programs are either geared toward other options or fairly slow moving, however they still impact us and must be attended to. In my updates I will try to keep you up on the programs, which have a more significant or immediate impact on flight service.

AFSS IIDS -- Integrated Information Display System

Section 14 of the OASIS MOU states that the FAA will initiate the procurement of an integrated information display system (IDS) network in all facilities not later than the end of FY-04. To that end we have begun work on an Initial Requirements Document (IRD) for and AFSS IIDS. The project lead has set a very aggressive schedule and would like to complete the IRD by the end of September. For those of you that seen the ACE-IDS that is currently being deployed for Towers and TRACONs, we will probably end up with something fairly similar, however rest assured we are looking at interfaces that are specifically for flight service. An IIDS will allow for both "static" and "dynamic" data to be displayed, which will greatly enhance our abilities in preflight weather briefing, in-flight briefing and in the future remote airport advisories. It will also allow for some automation of coordination with ARTCCs and ATCTs. Below is a list of possible IIDS content that has been discussed, you will notice some of the items on the list are listed in the OASIS MOU and it will have to be decided whether they will reside on OASIS or the AFSS IIDS. One thing to remember is that there are a limited number of windows you will be able to have open on your OASIS display. Also keep in mind that with an IIDS each facility will have the ability to customize it to their specific needs. With that in mind I would like to solicit your input from the field. If there is any type of weather or aeronautical product you would like to see included, please let me know. My email address is mailto:[email protected] or you may email me through the NAATS web site.

Possible AFSS IDSS content:

• NSTS -- NOTAM Short Term Solution
• SUA/ISE -- Special Use Airspace / In-Flight Service Enhancement
• Graphical TFRs
• Automated PIREP coordination
• Live ASOS/AWOS feeds for flight plan area
• Live RVR feeds for flight plan area
• DASI -- Digital Altimeter Setting Indicator
• IRIG-B Clock
• ITWS (by MOU) -- Integrated Terminal Weather System
• AWIPS
• LLWAS for flight plan area
• AFWIN (by MOU) -- Air Force Weather Information System
• WARP (by MOU) -- Weather and Radar Processor
• JAWS (JNU only) -- Juneau Alert Winds System
• NCWF -- National Convective Weather Forecast
• TDWR -- Terminal Doppler Weather Radar
• Emergency Procedures
• Low and High Altitude Enroute Charts
• VFR Sectional Charts
• Approach Plates
• Airport Diagrams
• AFD Info
• Position Checklists
• 7110.10
• 7930.2 NOTAMS
• 7210.3 Facility Operation and Administration
• Notices to Airman Publications (Class II)
• 7340.1 Contractions
• 7350.7 Location Identifiers
• Locally designed pages

We are starting at the beginning so lets be sure to ask for everything we think we may need.

Friends and Partners of Aviation Weather

I attended a meeting of the "Friends and Partners" on July 17, the main topic was a briefing by the National Weather Service on their proposal to go to a completely graphical area forecast. The meeting was attended by most of the alphabet groups as well as representatives from the weather requirements division here at headquarters. For a sample of the proposed NWS product you can go to the following web site http://www.aviationweather.noaa.gov/demo/ I expressed several concerns from a briefers standpoint at this meeting, not the least of which was to avoid what the Canadians have to work with. Again I would appreciate any comments or questions from the field. The next Friends and Partners meeting is September 4th.

NSTS -- NOTAM Short Term Solution

Scott Malon and I are working closely on this program so I will simply refer you to his update. However I would like to add my thanks to the members of the recent CHI team for their hard work and note the loss of one of the NSTS computer programmers Pete Christopher, who has moved on to other things. He will be sorely missed.

FSOSC Update

Tim DeGrazio & Patsy Rowe

The Flight Service Operations Support Center (FSOSC) started out the month with a NAATS Liaison meeting with Chief Negotiator Bill Dolan. The discussion covered the projects that each liaison is working on. Of prime interest to everyone, of course, was the content of the insulting proposal the FAA gave at the FMCS arbitration. I know this topic will be covered in numerous articles in this newsletter so I won�t belabor it.

The Jeppesen Director of Government Services continued to promise early delivery of the TODS (TFR Operations Display System) prototype and, surprisingly, made good on his promise. The prototype was delivered and installed on August 6. We immediately began testing. Although some glitches were found, they have been corrected by the technical team. We are still working a few issues, however, overall system performance is great.

ATA-400 has scheduled a monitor comparison test for August 19 through 23. NAATS has already informed them that our preference is the 19" Dell monitor. This is the monitor that the NSTS CHI (NOTAM Short Term Solution Computer Human Interface) team has already agreed to. Originally the comparison test was set up to evaluate the Gateway 15", the Sun System 17", and the Dell 19" monitors. NAATS has already notified the FAA that, due to performance issues, the Sun System is unacceptable. Since this leaves a two horse race, we suggested the test had a forgone conclusion and could be cancelled. For some reason, ATA-400 has decided to go ahead with the test. (Gee, 15" or 19", which one should we choose?)

Still no word on when the equipment will be released to the field. Patsy and I continue to press this issue at every opportunity. Our main concern remains getting a quality product out to the field as soon as possible.

Voice Switch

Steve Glowacki, Technical Liaison

Although Northrop-Grumman has been selected as the AFSSVS vendor, there is still an outstanding action by Frequentis, the vendor that didn�t get the contract. They have filed a protest regarding the selection. This protest is a semi-legal process that may or may not result in impacting the program. Unfortunately, it�s anyone�s guess what the outcome could be, however I don�t believe there would be a large impact to the current effort. As I see it, the FAA made a business decision focusing on cost. The FAA was largely forced to make this decision since the pre-award evaluation didn�t reveal a large enough difference in quality between the two vendors, that is, enough to counter the difference in cost between the two bids. But as they say, the jury is still out.

We and NG are currently in ongoing talks regarding the details of the contract. Largely, these exchanges focus on the day-to-day aspects of doing business. There�s a bit of testing the waters and team development-like effort going on, as well. A Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) was recently held where the exact operations the new equipment should have was clarified. This was a two-week effort that included technical and operational issues. There was a lot of high-level discussion regarding how an AFSS Controller performs the daily work functions. It�s been apparent from the beginning (as displayed during the arbitration) that many people, vendors included, don't understand what we do, how we do it and the driving philosophy that governs our work effort. This may seem a bit "non-technical," however there is an inherent relationship between this and the technical design of the voice switch system. This TIM provided an opportunity (and an eye-opener for the vendor) to finally start to understand what we were asking for. The fallout meetings from this reveals some hope for the new equipment to "fit like a glove."

The Human Factors Team is almost completely selected. All NAATS slots have been filled, but management has two remaining selections to make. The first effort of the HF Team should occur sometime in October and should quickly develop into a monthly schedule with NG focusing on operational functionality and the Computer Human Interface (CHI) of the Touch Entry Display (TED).

OASIS UPDATE

Jeff Barnes, National OASIS Representative

Placement Controversy Won�t Die

8/13/02 -- Like Jason and Freddy, it seems the console equipment placement controversy just won�t die. I had an agreement in place with the OASIS program office to offer equipment placement changes to all the facilities who had been told they had to place equipment a certain way in the consoles. The program office controls the money, so that should be good enough, right? Well, no...turns out we didn't let everyone else here be involved in the decision, so it became a turf issue and now we have a person blocking us because we haven�t followed the proper procedure. Okay, fine...we didn't follow proper procedure, but one thing you�d better never tell me as the NAATS Rep is that I can't make an agreement with someone. I can make an agreement with whomever I please in the Agency to get what we need done. Now, if that person who made the agreement wasn't supposed to do so...well, that's the FAA�s problem, not mine. So, this person has thrown yet another wrench into our plan to do the right thing...no, the required thing by our MOU. The worst thing is that this person is in ARU-300, the organization I work most closely with. The organization that I expect to facilitate solutions to problems rather than throwing up roadblocks with no thought for correcting the problem. I had a long talk with the division manager today and I hope the problem will be resolved soon. What it means right now though is that we have to identify this process and communicate it out to the field. Hopefully in the next couple weeks although I�m not holding my breath. I don�t think this hurts us too bad because I�m sure the program has no more money to spend for the rest of the fiscal year. However, I will be keeping on top of this to ensure it gets resolved and the process gets communicated to the field so that the changes (the safety related ones being given the highest priority) get made early in the next fiscal year.

AOPA Continues to Support OASIS, However...

Today I gave a demonstration of OASIS for a group of people at the Harris Corporation facility here in DC. the primary reason for it was an invitation from Harris to AOPA to see OASIS and see how it has changed since they last saw it. From AOPA Andy Cebula, Senior Vice President for Government and Technical Affairs, and Melissa Bailey, Vice President for Government and Technical Affairs. Phil Boyer was invited but couldn�t attend due to travel. The purpose of the demo from Harris� and the OASIS Program Office�s point of view was to ensure continued support of OASIS by AOPA. I believe AOPA does continue to support OASIS...however..

AOPA�s Cebula Rebuffs NAATS Request for Support

I printed out the President�s report that included the FAA�s oral argument data and brought it with me. I highlighted those arguments that presented GA as second class citizens and gave that to Ms. Bailey after the demo. Also, I had talked to Wally and Ward and found out that Phil Boyer has written a letter to NATCA supporting the return of language saying that air traffic control is an inherently governmental function. At Wally�s request I asked Mr. Cebula and Ms. Bailey if AOPA would provide a similar letter to NAATS. Mr. Cebula answered, "No." He said that for flight service AOPA supports language saying that it is a governmental function, but not an inherently governmental function. Also, in the words that were used to answer my question it is clear that AOPA does not consider us to be air traffic controllers.

In My Opinion...

The rest of this is my opinion, not necessarily that of NAATS. It fits with what I�ve observed of AOPA�s relationship to NAATS and flight service for years now. The "no" answer provided me with the crucial piece that makes this a certainty in my mind.

If flight service is a governmental function (without the "inherently") it would mean that flight service could be contracted out with the contractor having significant liability protection because of that specific language.
Also, AOPA has been strangely silent on consolidation considering how opposed to it they were in the past. They are also extremely interested in the progress of the AFSS Voice Switch and the particulars of the installation waterfalls for the voice switch and OASIS. they are also highly involved with the effort to integrate DUATS into OASIS although this would be understandable regardless.

Based on this evidence, which I think is substantial if circumstantial, I think AOPA has an agenda that they are trying to keep hidden. I believe that AOPA wants to see consolidation happen, wants to see the "governmental function" language, and wants to see OASIS and voice switch deployed in a particular way so that they can be the entity that takes the contract that removes flight service from the government. This would also mean they have no intention of giving us any support in our pay dispute because it would hurt their ability to pursue their plan.
I would like to think that I watch too much "X-Files," but this hypothesis fits everything I have observed much too neatly for me to hold out much hope of being wrong. I would love to be proved wrong and see a benevolent AOPA be a white knight for us, but I�m convinced that isn�t going to happen. I think we shouldn't be looking to AOPA for any kind support -- much less a rescue.

Safety - Not For Auction

By Wally Pike, NAATS Press Release

The 2140 air traffic controllers of Flight Service Stations, represented by the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), continue to play an integral role in National Security and aviation safety, both "inherently governmental" functions. The Federal Aviation Administration has mandated flight service controllers brief all pilots to be "cautiously alert" as the "US Government continues to receive indications that extremist individual are planning additional terrorist operation...possibly using civil or general aviation aircraft." The notice also advises pilots to be on a "continuous alert for suspicious persons and activities..."

This however is nothing new for the controllers of Flight Service Stations as they served as the main liaison between the federal government and the flying public, interpreting and relaying the ever constant changes to the National Airspace System in the aftermath of September 11. This resulted in three times the normal traffic volume. Despite this effort, in a surprise move the FAA has commissioned a study to privatize such operations. Wally Pike, President of NAATS, feels, "In a time of war, the highest trained professionals need to be ensuring safety and National Security issues, not the lowest bidder. A contributing factor to the events on September 11th was that baggage and passenger screening, was conducted by the lowest bidder, not by the most qualified individuals. I am calling on President Bush to rescind his determination that air traffic is not an inherently governmental function." If the President chooses not to act, then Congress should pass a law mandating all air traffic control be deemed an �inherently governmental function� for National Security, and the protection of the American flying public. One only has to look to Canada and Switzerland to see the failures that have resulted from privatizing air traffic control."

General Aviation Summit Held

Ward Simpson, GA Summit Representative

NAATS and AOPA held a meeting this morning (8/21) at AOPA Headquarters in Frederick, MD. Attending for AOPA was its President, Phil Boyer, as well as Melissa Bailey and Andy Cebula. Besides myself, Wally and Kate Breen, our A76 representative were present.

Of the many things discussed, the main cause for the meeting was to find out just what AOPA�s position was on the future contracting out of some/part or all of Flight Service (the A76 issue) and did AOPA believe that our jobs were inherently governmental.

Phil Boyer stated he will go on record that all controller�s jobs in the towers, centers and flight service stations are inherently governmental and will support that position. He stated that it is in his organization's best interest to deal with a government run entity where there is regulation involved vice dealing with contractors and/or private industry.

He went on to say that he does not believe that the A76 study will lead to the contracting out of the Flight Service functions. If AOPA truly believed this, they would have been down on the hill this very minute. In short, Boyer believes that the A76 is a study on cost savings and not really on contracting out. He believes it will focus on inefficiencies on how things are currently being done, and foresees changes made in technology and the current makeup of the system. This change in makeup might include the consolidation or closing of some of our flight service stations. To believe Flight Service will be doing business unchanged in the year 2005 or 2007 is unrealistic. Change is inevitable and he believes A76 will cause this. Instead of everyone hiding from this fact, it is best all the players get involved and agree as to how this road map to the future should look.

History of Our Criticality to the ATC System

Ron Consalvo, Eastern Regional Coordinator

The FAA would you believe that our Flight Service Controllers somehow play a lesser role in the importance of the Air Traffic Control System. I would like to speak to the history of our jobs criticality to the ATC System.

You can, in large part, judge the worth of a person or organization by how they function in times of crisis. This is exactly where we Flight Service Controllers have demonstrated our value to the Air Traffic Control System over the years.

We have had two major catastrophes in our Nation�s aviation system in the past 21 years. Each time, we, as Flight Service Controllers have demonstrated how invaluable we are to the Air Traffic system.

As you probably know, in 1981 there was a Nation-wide strike involving all Air Traffic Controllers, except the Flight Service Controllers. Over 90% of the Tower and Center Controllers walked off the job and were fired by President Reagan, leaving but a handful of Tower and Center Supervisors and all the Controllers of the Flight Service option to keep the Nation�s aircraft flying.

In the weeks and months following the strike, an "Airport Reservation System" was developed whereby we Flight Service Controllers administered the flow and quota of all IFR air traffic out of each of the United States major airports (normally a Center and TRACON function), as well as delivering IFR clearances. This was all in addition to our normal duties.

At night, the Towers were closed and we took over their duties. Each Flight Service Station assumed Airport Advisory Service for all the airports in its Flight Service Area, performing essentially the same functions as any VFR Tower controller would. During this time period we were performing two jobs, and I believe, without our contributions, the Air Traffic System would not have been able to function.

Eventually, Military Controllers were brought in to assist the rebuilding of the system, and many of our Flight Service Controllers transferred to the Tower and Center options to assist as well. For our efforts we were given Presidential Commendations, and it was at this time we were given the 5% operational differential that all controllers receive, and which eventually became PL 97-276.

To anyone still skeptical of our importance in times of crisis, one need only look to the job that we Flight Service Controllers did following the disaster of September 11th. On 9/11 itself, immediately following the tragedy, we took the lead in getting all VFR aircraft on the ground immediately -- and keeping them on the ground.

In the weeks and months following 9/11, our traffic increased 2-3 times its normal amount (Exhibit 12 -- Leesburg traffic). At some Stations it was an even larger increase due to the huge amount of Security Flight Restrictions, and Notices to Airman.

Without us Flight Service Controllers, and our contributions, very few general aviation aircraft would have made it into the air, and through the complex maze of Flight Restrictions. In the following months, we continued to hold things together, by keeping pilots apprised of the ever changing and complex Security and Airspace regulations that to this day continue to evolve from the 9/11 catastrophe.

For example: Special Federal Aviation Regulation 94, which governs the restricted airspace around Washington (which anyone who has had to sit in their seat for 30 minutes prior to landing at DCA is familiar with,) mandates that general aviation pilots based in this area must contact Flight Service for coordination with the US Secret Service Joint Operations Center to verify the pilots name and confidential code before even departing or arriving general aviation airports in this area.

Additionally, since 9/11, we have provided, and continue to provide, enormous assistance to the Military in their National Security efforts and patrols; and international flight planning for their troop movements overseas in support of the war.

It is unfortunate that these sort of tragedies are required for the FAA to remember who we are and how vital our contributions to the system are.

If you will, take a minute to look at Exhibit 19, pg. 2 at the top. This is the FAA�s response to the Inspector General�s recommendation for further consolidation of Flight Service and is a pretty eloquent expression of the critical role we play in this Nation�s Air Traffic System :

I�d like to read the second sentence as it is particularly pertinent:

"Air traffic control specialists (ATCS) have three certification options: flight service, terminal, and en route. The criticality to the National Airspace System (NAS) of ATCSs serving in the Flight Service Option has become increasingly apparent in the wake of the September 11 events. While Flight Service ATCSs do not control air traffic, they provide critical support to the control of air traffic. In addition to relaying aeronautical and weather information to pilots, they provide vital explanations and instruction on the aeronautical, weather, and other critical NAS information. Explanations of airspace restrictions provided by AFSS ATCSs enable two-way exchanges to ensure better understanding by pilots. Pilots on the ground at un-towered airfields often rely on flight service station (FSS) or AFSS specialists as the sole means to obtain air traffic control (ATC) clearances. Pilots needing to air-file an instrument flight plan file with an AFSS ATCS, thereby relieving terminal/center controllers from this duty."

Keep in mind, these are not our words -- they are the FAA's!

Our performance when national emergencies have arisen, emphatically points out that we play as critical and important a part in the Air Traffic system as any of the other Controller options, and our contribution to the system is no less important.

Safety and Health Updates

Suzanne Pellosma, OSH Representative

Occupational Lung Ailments Cost Billions

The rising costs and incidences of occupational lung diseases, estimated at $8.5 billion for 2001, warrants preventative measures. A recent study by the American College of Chest Physicians, utilizing statistics from 1996, says that occupational pulmonary disease costs $5 billion and occupational asthma costs $1.6 billion in direct and indirect costs. Direct costs included medical and administrative expenses and indirect costs included lost wages, lost fringe benefits, and lost production. In terms of human loss, the study estimated 15,032 workers died from occupational chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and an additional 805 workers died from occupational asthma. The study noted that obstructive lung disease is the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. "Decreasing the level of dust and particulate matter in workplace air would help to reduce or prevent the incidence of occupational lung disease," says a Professor of Health Economics in the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine at the University of California.

2002 TLVs and BEIs

The American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists recently ratified the 2002 Threshold Limit Values (TLV) for chemical substances and physical agents, and for Biological Exposure Indices (BEI). It also approved recommendations for additions to the Notice of Intended Change. A complete listing of the substances that were added is available on the agency�s website: www.acgih.org. The 2002 TLV and BEI book is now available for order online at: www.acgih.org/store.

Record-keeping Seminars

The National Safety Council will be offering a training seminar on OSHA�s new record-keeping standard. The seminar, available throughout the nation via local Safety Council chapters, identifies the differences between the old and the new record-keeping requirements. A schedule of seminar dates and locations is available online at : http://www.nsc.org/oshareco or by calling 1-800-621-7619.

Tuberculosis Standard Gets Another Look

A 60-day comment period was just completed for OSHA�s Tuberculosis Rulemaking Record, which allowed for review and comment on the agency�s final risk assessment and the Institute of Medicine�s report, "Tuberculosis in the Workplace." OSHA last opened the TB record in June 1999 to seek comment on new studies and data that would assist the agency in determining the occupational risk of TB exposure.

OSHA Promotes Defibrillator Use in the Workplace

Responding to prodding from the White House Regulatory Affairs Office, OSHA recently took steps to encourage employers to consider making automated external defibrillators (AED) available when sudden cardiac arrest occurs in the workplace. OSHA issued a fact card and technical bulletin on the use of AEDs after the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the White House Budget Office urged the agency to consider making the devices mandatory in workplaces. OSHA Administrator, John Henshaw, noted that, if used immediately, the small, compact devices used immediately to administer and electric shock that restores the heart rhythm can revive more that 90% of cardiac arrest victims. In 1999 and 2000, 815 of 6,339 workplace fatalities reported to OSHA resulted from cardiac arrest. The City of Los Angeles launched a citywide program to place AEDs in public places. The program, which is aimed at protecting the public from death by sudden cardiac arrest, calls for installation of 200 AEDs in the city�s most-frequented buildings and tourist attractions, including City Hall, Parks & Recreation facilities, the Convention Center, the city�s airports and the L.A. Zoo by next year.

Nursing Home Operator Settles Ergonomic Citations

One of the nation�s leading nursing home operators agreed to adopt measures designed to reduce musculoskeletal injuries in nursing home workers as part of a settlement with OSHA and the Service Employees International Union. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., which operates more than 800 long-term care facilities in the United States, will purchase mechanical lift equipment and establish a training program to teach personnel how to use the equipment. Under the terms of the agreement, Beverly also must minimize manual lifting of patients and file reports with OSHA.

Genetic Testing Lawsuit Settled

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company will pay $2.2 million to employees who were asked to submit to genetic testing after agreeing to settle a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission filed the lawsuit after discovering the Fort Worth, Texas- based railway required employees who had filed claims of work-related Carpal Tunnel Syndrome to submit to blood tests for a specific genetic marker. The lawsuit contended that genetic testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

New Guide for Terrorism Threats to HVAC Systems Now Available

The Department of Health and Human Services recently issued new guidelines for protecting ventilation systems in commercial and government buildings from chemical, biological and radiological attacks. Prepared by NIOSH, the guide recommends building owners adopt security measures for air intakes and return-air grills and restrict access to building operations systems and building design information. It also recommends that owners assess the emergency capabilities of systems� operational controls, elevate filter efficiency, update building plans and adopt preventative maintenance procedures. The guide is available online at http://www.edc.gov/niosh.

More Ergonomic News

In addition to OSHA�s comprehensive approach to reducing ergonomic-related injuries and illnesses in the workplace, OSHA�s Administrator, John Henshaw, has announced details on the formation of the National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics. A few to the committee�s responsibilities include:

• Identifying gaps in existing research on ergonomics and application of principles to the workplace.
• Suggesting methods of providing outreach and assistance that emphasizes the importance of ergonomics to employers and employees.

The committee will consist of 15 members selected for their expertise and/or experience with ergonomic issues.

Washington State recently put the state�s new ergonomics rule into effect, but plans to delay enforcement until July 2004. The state�s ergonomics rule (which has been challenged by an industry lawsuit) would require employers to find and correct repetitive-stress hazards. Minnesota and Alaska are also considering their own ergonomic regulations. California already has a standard in place that is also being challenged by various industries.

Remaining Healthy 50+

Nutrition is important at any age, but turning 50 is a time to revamp your eating plan. As you age, your metabolism slows down. Excess weight is hard on your back, knees and joints, and can lead to sleeping problems. Losing excess weight can also help lower blood pressure and cholesterol level. Limit sodium intake. Eat fruits and vegetables -- they will help the brain function and can delay senility. Vitamin D and calcium are still a vital part of a healthy diet. Exercise keeps you young and increases strength. If you exercise, you lose about half a percent per year in ability and performance levels regarding strength. If you don�t exercise, it�s more like 2 percent per year. Walking, biking, or swimming not only provide needed exercise, but are fun, too. Early detection of medical problems is also a key to maintaining good health, so get that yearly physical. Mammograms and prostate checks should be done annually. Regular colon cancer and hearing tests are also great ideas. Yearly flu shots are recommended. If you smoke, NOW is the time to quit. As for alcohol, practice moderation. Live to live!!

President Pike Interviewed

PRIVATIZATION PREDICTION
AVweb, Aug. 19, 2002
ANNOUNCEMENT ON FSS PLAN DUE WEDNESDAY...

It�ll be one small announcement for the FAA but a union leader says it could be a giant leap toward the privatization of civil aviation services in the U.S. Wally Pike, president of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), told AVweb the FAA will announce on Wednesday whether it will go ahead with a $1 million study into privatizing some of the functions of flight service stations in the lower 48 states. He doesn�t have much doubt which way the decision will go. "This is the first step toward privatization," said Pike. "I think that�s exactly the process they're engaged in." On July 17, the FAA revealed the results of a $450,000 preliminary study by consultants Grant Thornton into the feasibility of FSS privatization. The study was done as part of the government-mandated A-76 process. The A-76 process was introduced by the Office of Management and Budget to identify government-run services that can be taken over by the private sector at lower costs and without compromising service. AVweb�s phone calls to the FAA and Grant Thornton were not returned prior to our deadline. The study found there were savings to be had in privatization and recommended a more detailed look. Pike said the FAA promised NAATS it would be involved in the initial study but the union wasn't told about it until after it was complete. Pike said FSS privatization is the thin edge of the wedge and that other parts of the system, including air traffic control, are the real targets after a softening-up process. "I can't believe we�re the ultimate goal," he said. "We�re basically the sacrificial lambs. We�re a smaller union and we don�t have the political clout (of the controllers)."

SINGLE CENTRAL FLIGHT SERVICE FEARED
AVweb, Aug. 19, 2002

One of Pike�s lieutenants said the FSS privatization could mean the consolidation of the 61 existing FSSs into one. Jack O�Connell, who heads the Great Lakes region of NAATS, said a Grant Thornton consultant told him and other NAATS officials at a meeting that a single centralized FSS would provide the most cost savings. Although the preliminary study doesn�t mention such a consolidation, O�Connell isn�t taking any chances. He�s written congressmen [letter follows this article] about the consultant�s comments and is waging a personal war against that type of initiative. O�Connell said any further consolidation of FSSs (there were more than 300 before a downsizing in the 1980s) would compromise safety. Having just one for the whole lower 48 states would be ludicrous, he said. "We depend a lot on our local knowledge of the topography and weather to advise pilots," he said. "I�m a flatlander. How am I supposed to give you good advice about flying in the mountains?" O�Connell said the local knowledge of flight service personnel has been invaluable in helping pilots get out of trouble. Pike said safety, not economics, should come first in determining the FSS structure. "The safety of the skies over our heads is so crucial to every U.S. citizen that it is inherently a government function," he said. "Privatization has not worked in Europe, Australia or Canada so why would anyone believe it will be any more successful in the U.S. with significantly more traffic?"

Letter to Congress Regarding the A-76 Study

I have sent this letter to the Senators and Representatives from Michigan.
You may wish to send something similar to all that you vote for. -- Jack O�Connell

July 20, 2002
The Honorable Michael J. Rogers
United States House of Representatives 509 CHOB
Washington, DC. 20515

Dear Congressman Rogers:

On behalf of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), and the 2,400 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees that we represent, I am writing to advise you of a decision by the FAA that will seriously effect aviation safety and security.

In a meeting on May 23, 2002 between Wally Pike NAATS President, and FAA�s Steve Brown ATS-1, and Bill Peacock AT-1, we were assured that the FAA and NAATS would work together on the study from the beginning. During the A-76 briefing given by this agency to the NAATS Board of Directors on July 17, 2002, we were surprised to learn the FAA had completed the feasibility study without our experience and input, at a cost of $450,000.00. The contractor who conducted the feasibility study Grant Thornton recommended to go ahead with the A-76 program. They will be paid an additional $1,000,000.00 to go ahead with this study for contracting out the Air Traffic function in the Flight Service option.

During the presentation a recommendation to further consolidate the Flight Service Air Traffic Control facilities was presented, citing the likelihood of significant savings. Grant Thornton�s representative Ramon Contreras when questioned about this stated that the most savings would come from having all work done out of one location.

Currently controllers maintain topographic and meteorological knowledge specific to their geographic area. Consolidation removes this local knowledge that so often during an emergency has saved the lives of pilots and their passengers operating in the air traffic system. Congress has already ordered the FAA to maintain the existing network of 61 Automated Flight Service Stations. These 61 sites were the result of consolidation from over 360 facilities in the 1980�s. Further consolidation does not follow that order. Further consolidation risks safety.

I am including NAATS press release on this matter.

If you would like additional information, please contact me at 248-219-9979. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

John W. O�Connell
NAATS Great Lakes Regional Director
1776 Havenshire Lane
Brighton, MI. 48116-8737

Just For The Record

Just For the Record

In my editorial last month, the percentage raise NAATS seeks was stated as 13.82. The correct figure is 13.2%. Though after what was said about us in the hearing, perhaps the .62% extra should be due us for compensate for being libeled so egregiously by the Management side.

-- Eli Morrissy, Editor

September 11th: Reflections on the 1st Anniversary

A collection of individual commentaries and personal observances regarding the day of
the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and their aftermath.

Thomas L Wise
Pilot, Minnesota Jet, Inc.
Text of a letter sent to MIV Station Manager, dated September 18, 2001.

It had been a bad week for me, a far worse week for my country. After the holocaust that hit Manhattan and Washington Tuesday morning, I found myself, like countless Part 91 pilots grounded at Teterboro Airport. In an atmosphere where all negative rumors proved to be true and all hope of returning home vanished despair had settled over the forgotten.

It perhaps is not hard to understand, therefore, how much the professionalism and concern of the specialists at Millville Flight Service meant to the stranded flight crews at Teterboro and elsewhere. The simple fact that they listened sympathetically to our frustrations went a long way to relieving the anger that all of us began to feel about a seemingly uncaring and deaf bureaucracy. Throughout the ordeal the people of Millville FSS were friendly, helpful and caring. To all of us they were heroes.

Words are insufficient to express my gratitude to the many dedicated people that I spoke with at your organization this past week, but I did want to let them know that their many kindnesses were greatly appreciated.

* * * * * * * * *

Ron Napurano
Manager, Islip AFSS

On the morning of September 11, 2001 I was preparing for a trip to Washington, DC to attend the Model Work Environment Awards Ceremony when the unreal happened. I was stunned and shocked by what I was witnessing. I immediately drove to work filled with a myriad of emotions. On the way I spoke to Debbie Shea, Islip�s FacRep, we both wondered what could possibly be next. For me that day will never be forgotten. The lives lost, families destroyed, and the unfolding horror was to me the darkest hour our country faced. But throughout the tragedy I also remember the courage of America�s true heroes, our police, firefighters, and countless others who refused to give into fear and reached out to help one another. The acts of kindness we, as Americans, had for those in need. Whether we donated money, time, or prayer we shared the sense of a people united. Americans of all races, men and women of all ages united against those who acted to harm us.

I also remember the faces of everyone on duty at Islip that day and the days that followed. We wore our hearts on our sleeves but throughout we were determined to do what needed to be done. There were people like Debbie Shea and Pat Less, although on their RDOs, came to the facility to help in anyway possible. Or the many volunteers who remained on duty when they could have went home to be with their own families during those difficult hours that followed. Controllers like Andrew Kressel, Pat Bollerman, Lydia Lacoste, Ray Gearity, John Coppola, and others who were there when our aviation system and country needed them most.

I think our feelings and thoughts were best expressed by one employee who, when presented with her Eastern Region 911 pin, indicated that she would like to share her pin with all of Islip�s employees who supported each other throughout those difficult days that followed September 11.

In closing, I am proud of each and every controller, management official, and administrative personnel who demonstrated, once again, that Flight Service employees are consummate professionals who are and continue to be an integral part of our aviation system.

* * * * * * * * *

Wally Pike
NAATS President

As we approach the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of last September 11 perhaps we should take time to reflect on events over the last twelve months. I�ll talk strictly from the perspective of our bargaining unit and its relationship to the FAA.

On September 10, 2001 we were faced with a negotiations impasse on pay, serious staffing shortages and OASIS deployment concerns. Despite repeated meetings and briefings with senior FAA managers we didn�t seem to have an administrative remedy within sight.

We were working with a lobbyist who felt relatively certain that legislation could be effected that would solve the pay issue. Staffing discussions were taking place with the FAA but the outcome was far from certain. Our Human Factors Team was working hard on OASIS but mid-level FAA managers were not responsive. Overall it was a mixed bag.

Then came September 11. The manner in which you have handled the aftermath of the attacks has been extraordinary. Working shorthanded and experiencing a fourfold or greater increase in workload, you have done everything anyone could ask. In many ways it has been our proudest hour as an integral part of the air traffic control system.

We did this, not because of expected rewards or thanks, but because it was our duty to our agency during a time of crisis. More than that, it was our duty to our country.

Having stated the above, it still must be said that the FAA�s subsequent actions regarding our option have been extremely disappointing.

We have received letters of appreciation, some time off awards and the Administrator did agree to the advisory FMCS hearing to help resolve the pay impasse. We�re properly appreciative of those but, in general, the FAA has taken the low road in dealing with our concerns.

On the issue of pay, the FAA has consistently refused to seriously consider comparability between the air traffic controllers. Worse still, no one in senior FAA management will take the responsibility for devaluing FSS controllers. To bring in an outside attorney and to try to indicate that he is the problem is ludicrous; he�s obviously just a messenger.

Hopefully we�ll be successful with the FMCS and the FAA will implement the recommendation. The approach taken by the FAA team at the hearing, however, bears some comment here. I understand the concept of an adversarial hearing and doing what one can to win but I don�t understand distortion of material facts. I won�t waste time here with the "specialist" vs. "controller" type of subjective FAA posturing. The fact is that we�re controllers by Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) definition and not because anyone in the FAA chooses to call or not to call us that. The same objective analysis was the basis for our hearing presentation on the other issues. I�m confident these facts were not lost on the mediators.

I do take issue with the FAA�s misleading statements and misrepresentations. Does anyone really believe that we would turn down a 41.3% increase? The very least the FAA could have done was to accurately represent the facts of their own proposal.

The FAA owed us better at the hearing.

Then we come to the FSS A76 study. Again, someone in senior FAA management has made a decision to conduct this study but it seems impossible to find that person. If we were to believe what we�re told at FAA Headquarters, then we should see this study as a benevolent effort to help us improve our service. I have no doubt that the FAA decision makers would prefer us to quietly let them walk FSS into privatization. That�s not going to happen.

We have support on both sides of the congressional aisle to fight any ATC contracting out. Regrettably, we don�t yet have the same support from the Bush Administration but we�re working on that and optimistic.

Again, after our demonstrated value to ATC and the NAS, the FAA owed us better than an A76 study to explore contracting out Flight Service. Hopefully the dense fog will lift and the new Administrator will terminate the study before more damage is done to employee morale.

So now let�s fast forward to our current status on the matters I mentioned at the beginning: pay, staffing, and OASIS.

1. We�ve taken the steps necessary to finally resolve the pay impasse.

2. Staffing remains a major concern due Air Traffic�s reluctance to negotiate a firm staffing number. This will probably have to be legislated and we�re working toward that goal.

3. OASIS is a great success story with the AND deployment and the efforts of our Human Factor Team.

Overall, a mixed bag.

Regardless of these outcomes, we can all take solace in the knowledge that your efforts since September 11 have been absolutely the right thing to do. We know the value of our services, not just to the FAA, but also to our country as a whole. Even if the FAA acts at times as though it does not.

* * * * * * * * *

Eli Morrissy
Editor, NAATS News

After a year, I still find it difficult to believe that September 11th really happened. It bears too much resemblance to an event described in Tom Clancy�s Executive Orders to feel completely real to me.

Yet, this isn�t a techno-thriller novel. It�s a hard, sad reality that someone held deep enough grievances against this nation to mount such an attack. It�s an even sadder reality that, despite all the sound and fury over security, we are really no safer than we were on September 10th. We are only older and wiser.

For me the greatest disappointment comes, not from the idea that someone could succeed in attacking us, but form our agency�s conduct in the wake of the crisis. Thousands of FAA employees, including Flight Service Controllers, rolled up their sleeves and did their best to help the U.S. weather the storm.

But how did Administrator Garvey and Secretary Mineta show their appreciation for effort above and beyond the call of duty? They doled out generic letters of appreciation, chintzy pins and meager time off awards. In some cases, thanks to bureaucratic snafus, regions and facilities didn�t even get those things until months later. It would be outrageous, were it not so pathetic.

In the months that followed, misery piled up on overwork as budgets became strained to the breaking point by new security requirements. Yet we stayed the course and did our jobs, even with deteriorating equipment and conditions. How does the FAA show appreciation for our professionalism and dedication? Their attack dog lawyers did their best to belittle us before the federal mediators and, to add insult to injury, FAA Headquarters insisted on sending A76 evaluation teams into our facilities to discover how to most efficiently carve up our safety-related jobs for sale to the lowest bidder.

Still here we stand. I said STAND. We haven�t laid down like whipped dogs and bared our throats in submission to the FAA. We�re still on the job, still working to ensure aviation safety, still explaining hazardous weather conditions, national security NOTAMs and myriad TFRs to the pilots we serve. We�re short-handed with fewer opportunities for breaks, but we�re still here in spite of the fact that FAA Headquarters personnel lack the management savvy to respect and appreciate valuable employees.

We too, are older and wiser, and if the FAA thinks we�re going away without a fight, they are sorely mistaken.

Senate Committee Takes Steps to Modernize FSS

AOPA Press Release

Aug. 15 -- The Senate Appropriations Committee is supporting modernization of flight service station equipment. In its appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, the committee included funding for 12 additional FSS Operational and Supportability Implementation Systems (OASIS). The new system will allow briefers to more easily find the specific information a pilot needs. It replaces an antiquated 1970s-era mainframe computer system.

"AOPA supports the implementation of OASIS and is encouraged that the committee recognizes the importance of funding this modernization program," said Andrew V. Cebula, AOPA senior vice president of Government and Technical Affairs.

OASIS uses "off the shelf" computer equipment and a modern, graphical user interface. It allows FSS to customize its briefing products and even overlay a pilot's planned route of flight on maps and weather charts. OASIS is currently in use at the Seattle, Washington, and Anderson, South Carolina, AFSSs (automated flight service stations).

AOPA senior staff participated in a live demonstration of the system this week. Harris Corporation (the contractor developing OASIS for FAA) invited AOPA, FAA, and FSS union representatives to view the system operating with a live data stream from the Seattle FSS.

"The demonstration illustrated the fact that OASIS is a significant step forward from the current FSS computer system. General aviation pilots will benefit from the route planning tool and the briefer�s ability to access information more quickly," said Melissa Bailey, AOPA vice president of air traffic, regulatory and certification policy. "Some small strides are even being made in the area of NOTAMs. There is more work to be done, but at least OASIS will allow for some basic sorting of NOTAMs." (Pilots and briefers currently have to manually sift through hundreds of unrelated "notices to airmen" to find information applicable to a specific route of flight.)

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

Chuck Kuennen, Reno AFSS

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 9/11. 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 DQs 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 (SMEs) 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 OPSUPs in our region that work mids, perhaps this is true of other regions as well. If OPSUPs 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. OPSUPs transferring traffic. Some OPSUPs 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 Rancho Murrieta 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 OPSUPs 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. OPSUPs not "plugging in." Some managers have advised their OPSUPs 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. FPLs are routinely instructed to combine positions increasing their risk of compromising safety to get another briefer, why can�t management.
10. OPSUPs 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 AFSSs 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.
    1. Our briefings are subject to becoming longer. There is increased emphasis on ensuring every pilot is aware of any adverse NOTAMs; takeoff or landing, or TFR�s; Presidential, fire or national security. The FAA finally agreed the national NOTAM system is not user friendly.
    2. 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.
    3. 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 FAMs or request time off position for self-development, i.e., look at CBIs. 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.

AVIATION APPRECIATION DAY

Phil Brown, FAI HubRep

Aviation Appreciation Day in Fairbanks, Alaska! Begun over six months ago to promote the Union, Phil Brown�s brainchild finally became a reality last month. The initial intent of what would eventually be named "Aviation Appreciation Day" was to reach out to the aviation community of Fairbanks and show appreciation for their dedication and devotion to aviation in Alaska.

The day consisted of an open house and public tours through the Fairbanks AFSS, aviation safety seminars presented by FAI FSDO, pre-hunting season safety seminars presented by Alaska Fish and Game, civilian and military aircraft static displays, free coffee and doughnuts in the morning (provided by NAATS), a cookout in the evening (hosted by the Alaska Airman�s Association), and lots of aviation exhibitors all day long. All free to the flying public of Fairbanks! The seminars were "Special Use Airspace" by Major Ski, U.S. Army; "Fairbanks Airport Operations" by Rick Barnett; "Off Airport Operations" by Richard Kemp; "ELT Survival and Rescue" by Chris Connelly of the U.S. Coast Guard; and "Pre-Hunting Season Preparation for You and Your Aircraft" by Jay Kitchens of FAI FSDO.

Aviation Appreciation Day was a tremendous success due to a collaborative effort between NAATS, FAA Management, the Military and the Fairbanks community. The Mayor of Fairbanks officially proclaimed the day as "Aviation Appreciation Day" and presented the proclamation to our visiting dignitary, Mr. Pat Poe (FAA Regional Administrator of the Alaskan Region) while the local media covered the event.

Three large tents were set up in front of the AIFSS, two for exhibitors and one for the seminars. The local media, including television and newspaper reporters, interviewed Union members, FAA management and the public. Everyone had a great time and, more importantly, NAATS had a great sounding board to discuss issues like staffing inadequacies and privatization of our Flight Service functions.

It looks like it�s going to be an annual event now. Next year should be even bigger and better! See you there!

OPINION EDITORIAL: HIGH LEVEL INCOMPETENCE

Robert Erlick, HHR Alternate FacRep

Note: The opinion expressed below is strictly my own and in no way reflects the position of the Union or its elected or appointed officials or liaisons.

Well FAA, you insulted the wrong group of people during our "pay mediation." Obviously, you should have knocked yourselves, instead of messing with NAATS. If you�re looking at wasted pay, look no further than your own ranks. The Regional Offices and FAA Headquarters are loaded with under-qualified, under-educated and under-worked employees, all of whom are making more that we do. An example of this problem -- individuals promoted to Air Traffic Division Manager positions even though they hold no college degrees whatsoever.

You want to talk about incompetence? Look all the way up at the top. Money wasted on failed projects that could have been saved, if the FAA had hired the right people to do the job, amounts to millions. One example is AAS. This was to be the "Sector Suite" computer system for the Centers back in the mid to late 80s. AAS is known as the single largest and costliest failure in FAA history. Many people say that this was the system that made Congress lose its trust in the FAA. Of course, the project lead on AAS must have been fired along with the entire team, right? Nope! The lead was promoted and still, as of my knowledge of 2 years ago, works for the FAA.

Let�s talk about STARS, OASIS and many other projects introduced under a former head of Requirements Branch. This SES-level employee mandated Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS), NDI purchases for all of his projects. Every major product failed miserably due to the fact that you can�t buy COTS NDI for the FAA -- a well-known fact. Again, millions of dollars and many years were lost. Was this person fired? Nope! This management employee retired and, as far as I know, is still receiving a pension.

Why does the FAA promote failure? Failure at this level deserves termination. Many of the people putting us down are just people who couldn�t hack the job themselves. I�ve seen the Dilbert Principle followed from Center to Tower to Flight Service. Those who can�t work traffic get promoted to places where they can do less damage. It�s rare to see competent controllers get promoted.

One example from the field involves a supervisor who was caught out during random drug testing. This individual used a highly creative excuse to explain the presence of controlled substance in their system and managed, not long afterward, to gain promotion to a GS-14 job at in a Regional Office. This is unacceptable from any agency -- particularly one that knocks us for letting pilots drink coffee.

Here�s another money saver: Get rid of the useless Model Work Environment program. Everything covered by MWE is covered through some other program, practice or agreement. Who made up this wasteful program? Fire them! Who decided to waste all the money by enacting the program? Fire them, too!!

I could go on, but I think I�ve made my point. If the agency wants to save money, then look at the agency�s management. Look at the promotion process. Fire the incompetents (although that would create a lot of empty seats in Regions and at HQ). Hold management personnel accountable. Train people for their jobs -- and I don�t mean a week at CMD! Don�t insult us. Don�t sic your attack dog lawyers on us. The money IS there to be saved, but not by cutting deeper into Flight Service!

AIR MARSHALS DISILLUSIONED

AVweb, Aug. 19, 2002

Air marshals are quitting their jobs amid charges the working conditions they endure are putting passengers at risk. A USA Today report paints a picture of poorly trained and exhausted air marshals who stand out like sore thumbs because of the dress code enforced by the TSA. "This used to be an elite, great group. This used to be the baddest people you could find -- war heroes," one marshal told the paper. "Now they�ve turned us into a laughing stock."

Since Sept. 11, the paper alleges, hiring standards have been substantially reduced. Marshals no longer have to pass a difficult marksmanship course, with some hired and put into service without complete background checks.

MORE ATTACKS ON FLIGHT SERVICE

Bill Dolan, Chief Negotiator

It seems that the attacks never stop.

One of our better presidents, Harry Truman had a motto he kept on his desk. It read "The buck stops here." He realized that a leader was responsible for both the good and the bad things that occurred under his/her leadership. That he was responsible for supporting those that worked for him and those they served.

Unfortunately, that is not the FAA way. In this Agency it�s finding someone to blame for the problems resulting from poor management and leadership.

For more years than I care to remember, NAATS and its members have asked, begged, pleaded, and/or demanded that the Agency provide those of us working in flight service stations with the proper staffing, capable equipment, and competent management to enable us to accomplish our portion of the FAA�s mission.

In response we have been lied to, ignored, and told we were not worth an investment of their precious budget. We, and subsequently our customers, were dismissed as unimportant.

We are now in a position of being critically short staffed. 60% of our workforce is eligible to retire.

We are now in a position of trying to provide our services with equipment that was severely limited and obsolete at the time it was first installed.

We are now in a position of not only providing (with the above limitations) our normal services to the pilots but of also providing information in the interests of national security which, if not complied with by the pilot, could result in legal action against the pilot. Or, in a worst-case scenario, non-compliance could result in the pilot, passengers, and the aircraft being shot out of the sky.

Innocent peoples� lively-hoods and/or lives are at risk if the proper information is not conveyed to the pilot.

As you will see in the AOPA and FAA documents which follow, our "leaders" have chosen to place a priority on holding each and every one of you accountable for any errors you make. Any errors, even those directly attributable to the lack of leadership and support of flight service and its contribution to safety and national security, will most likely result in action taken against you.

Due to the Agency�s lack of support in ALL areas affecting our accomplishment of our assigned mission I recommend that all bargaining unit members re-evaluate how they go about performing their duties.

Review your duties as outlined in the 7110.10 and follow this directive to the letter. Carefully read the 55 pages of M1FC information presented and all of the pertinent paper hanging on position. Get thorough position relief briefings. Insure that you do not miss a thing. Above all, continue to be professional.

I understand that this may take a little more time but if you fail to provide all required information you will have all the time in the world when Mr. Belger holds you accountable for the systems failures the Agency has your butt on the street!

The FAA leadership will NEVER admit they are responsible for the situation we all (controllers, pilots, and the organizations representing them) find ourselves in.

PROTECT YOURSELF AND THE PILOTS YOU SERVE!

FAA Acknowledges Pilots Don�t Always Get TFR Information

AVweb, Aug. 28, 2002

The FAA has acknowledged what many pilots already know; flight service station briefers don't always tell them about temporary flight restriction areas (TFRs). Now the agency vows it will fix the problem.

In a letter to AOPA President Phil Boyer, Acting FAA Administrator Monte Belger said the FAA is implementing a "TFR Action Plan" to improve the flow of TFR information to general aviation pilots.

FAA is responding to AOPA�s demand for action to improve the NOTAM system to provide pilots with timely, accurate, and understandable information, particularly concerning TFRs.

"AOPA is encouraged by this strong response from Mr. Belger," said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior vice president of Government and Technical Affairs. "Ongoing security-related airspace restrictions and inadvertent incursions are some of the most pressing problems facing general aviation. It is critical that FSS personnel and pilots have the most current information."

Following the September 11 attacks, there have been a proliferation of TFRs and other restricted airspace, along with highly publicized incidents of aircraft intruding into the "no-fly" zones.

AOPA has substantial evidence that FSS briefers don�t have or are not relaying the most accurate, up-to-date flight restriction information to pilots. Specifically, AOPA learned that many pilots are not receiving TFR NOTAMs when they contact FSS for a briefing or, worse, are being given inaccurate information.

This week, FAA implemented AOPA�s recommendation to chart the Washington, D.C. Special Flight Rules Area on the Washington Terminal Area Chart. In addition, the agency is developing VFR waypoints to assist pilots in navigating around the airspace.

AOPA has also been asked to participate in a government/industry educational initiative aimed at developing a TFR presentation as part of the national Air Safety Program.

FAA has also committed to implementing graphical NOTAMs as soon as possible. It is currently testing a Jeppesen product that would plot TFRs on aeronautical charts. In mid-July, the FAA published several security TFR maps on its Web site. FAA also installed a "hot-link" capability from DUAT to the FAA Web site.

According to Belger, the FAA has also sent a notice to FSSs, holding them accountable for providing the information while conducting pilot weather briefings. FAA will place special emphasis on TFR dissemination in all future evaluations of the system.

"We intend to work diligently with the FAA to fix the NOTAM problem." Said Boyer.

Meanwhile, AOPA members may want to consider joining the AOPA Legal Services Plan, which provides legal advice and representation in defending against an FAA enforcement action for a TFR violation.

The following is the text of the letter sent from Acting FAA Administrator Monte Belger to AOPA President Phil Boyer.

Dear Mr. Boyer:

Thank you for your letter citing the concerns of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) regarding the issue of temporary flight restriction (TFR) violations by general aviation aircraft in the Washington, D.C., area, and the apparent lack of TFR information being disseminated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to pilots. Your letter raised three major issues: (1) graphical depiction of the Washington, D.C., area TFRs; (2) proper maps and tools needed for the pilot to avoid TFR areas, and (3) unsatisfactory weather briefings, specifically, provision of TFR information provided by flight service station (FSS) air traffic control specialists (ATCS). A TFR Action Plan addressing the three issues has been developed and implemented to address your concerns and is outlined below.

To address the first issue, we have taken the following actions: On July 10, the Camp David Prohibited Area 40 (P-40), the Crawford, Texas, Prohibited Area 49 (P-49), the White House and Vice-Presidential Residence Prohibited Area 56 (P-56), and the Washington, D.C., Special Flight Rules TFR were depicted on the Air Traffic Airspace Management (ATA) website. On September 5, this information will be published in the Class II Notices to Airmen publication (NTAP). In addition, we have disseminated a notice stating requirements for holding FSS ATCSs accountable for providing the above Class II NTAP information while conducting pilot weather briefings even though this information is published. Thirdly, a "hot-link" capability to the ATA website was installed on the direct user access terminal system (DUATS) on July 8. Finally, we have undertaken an upgrade of the Jeppesen software for use by the flight service operational support center personnel for the transmission of graphical TFRs to the FSSs. Jeppesen is contracted to provide the update by the end of August. After the software is tested and transmitted to the FSSs, we will make these products available to the public.

The following action items address the second issue. First is the development of visual flight rules (VFR) waypoints around P-40 to be published on VFR Sectional Charts. Coordination between the FAA and other Government agencies is currently ongoing, and we expect to complete the action in August. Secondly, in September, we will publish an advisory message on the VFR Sectional, Terminal Area, and VFR Flyway Planning Charts reference the P-40 and Washington, D.C., Special Flight Rules. In addition, we will publish special VFR Terminal Area and Flyway Planning Charts that will depict the Washington, D.C., Special Flight Rules Area and P-40/Restricted Area 4009 TFR in the August 8-15 timeframe. Finally, the Flight Standards Service has been tasked to develop a TFR presentation as part of the national Air Safety Program, including Operation Rain Check.

To address the final issue, a review was completed of the eight pilot weather briefings AOPA solicited from various FSSs by the Air Traffic Service. Voice recordings were provided to allow a thorough analysis by these organizations. As a result, Air Traffic will pursue this issue as a special emphasis item in future FSS evaluations to ensure that FSS ATCSs provide all TFR information pertinent to a pilot�s route of flight while conducting standard weather briefings as mandated. The second item was the issuance of a Letter to Airmen to be published on every available FAA headquarters, regional office, field facility, and DUATS website and the websites of other user groups, including AOPA. The wide dissemination of this letter is intended to cause pilots to ask for or search for TFR information pertinent to their route of flight, and it further states what the alternative could be if they fail to obtain the information.

Though we believe that our action plan covers your concerns, the need to ensure that the general aviation community is receiving and continues to receive the most current TFR information available is paramount to the mission of the FAA. Maintaining national security, while preserving the integrity of the National Airspace System, necessitates the timely receipt of critical TFR information to heighten the awareness of general aviation pilots to avoid violating TFRs in the future.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Regional Supplements

ALASKA REGION

Phil Brown, FAI HubRep

Privatizing Alaska Flight Service Stations

Just a short time ago we learned that the Federal Aviation Administration�s pursuit of privatization was coming to the Alaska Region.

Previously, the FAA assured our Union that the State of Alaska would be exempt from the current "A-76" study to determine whether Flight Service Station functions should be offered to the lowest bidder. Until recently it appeared that the FAA�s "assurance" was disingenuous at best. Your NAATS Alaska team was very suspicious of the A-76 lineup visiting us under the auspices of "information sharing."

On August 27th the FAA�s "hatchet team" visited the Alaska region to brief management and Union personnel on the A-76 process.

Yes, the A-76 process is definitely moving forward, make no mistake about it! It appears that flight service stations in the lower 48 WILL be offered to the lowest bidder! Alaska, however, remains exempt from this study. Should Alaska be included in a future A-76 study, the process would have to start back from square one.

Yes, the A-76 study is a long process. We are probably looking at between two and three years or longer from start to finish.

Yes, it is a process that could result in privatization. No matter how they sugar coat it with different names and labels...the end result is the same.

Yes, we were told that several contractors have already expressed interest in taking over our flight service option including NavCanada.

The simple fact is that the FAA has put flight service in the lower 48 on the chopping block! In simple terms, flight service is being forced to analyze their business practices, and then present the most economical (cheapest) bid possible to stay in business. Should a private contactor undercut the government�s bid by ten percent or more...they may be awarded the contract!

What can we do in Alaska? While we are not included in this study, we must not grow complacent! We are developing an alliance with the Alaska State Legislature. Out of sixty State Representatives and Senators, thirty-eight have already responded to our public relations letters and emails. They are all adamantly against the privatization of Flight Service functions. We have also drafted a joint resolution to present to the State Legislature, which addresses staffing and equipment problems in Alaska and refers to Alaska flight service station functions as "intimately related to the public interest."

Now is the time to write! If you have ever considered writing a letter to a political representative, now is the time. If you take the time to write, I will ensure that your letters reaches every member of the Alaska State Legislature, the Governor, the Lt. Governor, as well as Congressman Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens. Our Alaska media blitz will also continue. If you would like to write a "letter to the editor" as your Alaska Region public relations representative (Phil Brown) I will ensure that it is forwarded to every newspaper in Alaska.

Don�t agonize brothers and sisters... ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE!
 

CENTRAL REGION

Michael Terry, Director and Jerry Van Vacter, Corrdinator

Visiting
Jerry and I would like to visit St. Louis and Columbus this year. Let your FacRep know when would be the best time. We look forward to coming out and visiting with you.

Wally Pike will be rescheduling his visit to Fort Dodge shortly. I have asked him if he could fit in visiting Columbus as well.

Facility
Dan Painter was elected as the Alternate FacRep for Columbia. Chuck is talking to management about watch schedule numbers.

Sam Walley indicated that St. Louis is getting ready for OASIS. They are in the process of getting the training schedule done.

Wichita should be getting their new ATM soon (waiting for money). Jon indicated that Christina Miller is joining the union, welcome aboard!

Meetings
The quarterly meeting was held in Kansas City on Aug. 21st and 22nd. The minutes have been sent out if you have any questions, let us know or talk to your FacRep. The next quarterly meeting has been scheduled for Nov. 6th and 7th. Jerry and I will be going to Kansas City on Oct. 2nd to discuss the agenda with 501 and 540. Let us know by Sept 27th if you have anything items that you would like to bring up.

Jerry and I will be traveling to Dallas to the BOD business meeting on Oct.6th-10th. If there is something that you would like brought up call or email one of us.

The NAATS convention will be in San Antonio on April 23rd and 24th. Plan on attending if you can.

Pay
By the time you get this, the arbitrator will have made his decision. I would think that Mr. Barnes sees through the BS presentation the FAA did and rules in our favor.

We, like many of you, feel hurt, mad and feel FAA let us down with the comments that were made at the arbitration. I have for many years believed what we do is just as important as the other two options. We are a small but VERY dedicated group of controllers who have and will continue to be an important part in the Air Traffic system. I keep thinking back to what my parents told me when I was growing up "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." They can say what they want, we know we are important!!

EASTERN REGION

Donna Holmes, Director and Ron Consalvo, Coordinator

9/11 Remembered

September 11, 2001 was a day that began with a lot of promise not only for myself, but also, for everyone who was running for NAATS regional and national office. That was the day the votes were to be counted in our elections. I remember going to work that day with a bit of nervousness but also a lot of hope. 2001 was a difficult year for me. My wife died suddenly on 1/9/01 and as September rolled around I was beginning to come out of the depression that gripped me all year. I was looking forward to the election and the new challenges ahead if I was victorious.

The day at work started out slowly. The summer rush of traffic was now just a memory. I remember one of my coworkers came back from a break telling us about the plane crashing into the World Trade Center. Almost as soon as that news filtered out to pilots, we began receiving calls asking about any flight restrictions. We took turns taking breaks to go watch the television to gather what information we could get. I was on break for less than 5 minutes when I saw the second plane crash into the other tower. At that point, everyone knew we were under attack. Within minutes we received a call from a former supervisor who was now assigned to the regional office telling us there were as many as 8 other hijacked airplanes. I can still see the shock and horror on the faces of my coworkers. I can also remember the professionalism with which they carried out their duties in the face of some unknown terror. Almost immediately my thoughts were directed at my kids as I tried in vain to reach their school. All the circuits on the east coast were busy. I wondered how I could possibly explain what happened that day. I finally reached the principal and asked that my kids be sent to the after school program run by my sister-in-law. I knew I would be at work a little later than usual and I didn�t want my kids home alone on a day like that. The school had a small traveling circus planned for that evening. I was sure it would be canceled. However, the school decided to go ahead with the event and donated all the funds to the 911 fund. The circus began that night with a singing of God Bless America and the circus promoter handed out flags to everyone. I returned home around 8:00 pm and went in the house as my kids talked with their friends. Moments later I heard the neighborhood kids singing our National Anthem and God Bless America as they marched with the flag held high. I knew at that moment that we as a country would be fine.

At some point during that day, I received a call from NAATS headquarters informing me of my election as Eastern Region Coordinator. There was no time for any celebration. There were so many issues to consider. In the days that followed 9/11, our traffic tripled. Pilots kept calling asking when the restrictions would be lifted. As the weeks passed new issues arose with TFRs and the questions were asked as to who was able to fly. My coworkers at MIV and in the entire Eastern Region were impacted far greater than most of the country. I am so proud of the way that they handled the increased workload and the increased stress. They showed why Flight Service is so vital to the Air Traffic System. Our bargaining unit showed again how the entire air traffic system Begins and Ends with Flight Service.

I also have to give accolades to the Supervisory staff at MIV. The 24-hour telecon running on speaker at the bridge was often a comedy of errors. Many of the regional people had no idea of how to handle certain situations. Many great ideas were passed on by the MIV supervisors especially Greg Wicker who worked mostly days. Greg offered solutions of his own and passed on suggestions by many of our specialists.

I know this submission ran kind of long but I did not want to leave anything out. 9/11 was a horrible day for our country but the aftermath gives me renewed faith in our unity not only as Americans but also as Flight Service Specialists.

In Unity,
Ron Consalvo

MILLVILLE AFSS NEWS

Robert Ingram, MIV Alternate FacRep

FAA vs. NAATS on Pay Parity
It seems as though the FAA is taking all sorts of cheap shots at us. They are taking the issue of parity out of perspective and have even resorted to lying to the FMCS. For someone who has no idea about the scope of the flight service mission, it would seem as though the FAA thinks of us as useless and would prefer that we not exist.

1. Don�t let them take the issue of parity out of perspective. We are asking for pay parity with those controllers in ATC 6 thru 9 bands. They are trying to compare us to the centers and busier ATC 10 and above. The higher levels of ATC separate the "big airplanes" but the lower levels mostly deal with general aviation and commuters. We are not asking for parity with centers or the larger terminal facilities.

2. They say that tower controllers give weather briefings to pilots; another lie. Tower controllers do not give weather briefings to pilots, they are not qualified to do so, nor do most of them understand weather systems they way we do and finally, if they could, ask them, "Which tower position gives briefings?" Reading the weather from the ASOS or determining tower visibility hardly qualifies as a weather briefing.

3. Although our jobs are different, there is one common mission - the safety of flight.

4. Refer to the Administrators Fact Handbook, it is very plain to see the majority of air traffic is made up of general aviation. Those "big airplanes" they keep referring to are outnumbered by large numbers. Flight service controllers talk to all forms of air traffic, air carriers, commuters, general aviation, military and hot air balloonists.

5. When the FAA says there should be no coupling with the other options, should they have to be reminded that the origins of air traffic began with flight service over 75 years ago? Flight service is still growing today, the number of general aviation is increasing and still the FAA won�t give us the personnel to adequately staff our facilities.

6. The air traffic control system begins with flight service controllers every single day for general aviation and commuter pilots. We are usually the first FAA representatives they communicate with. Every time we issue NOTAMs concerning the status of VORs, airways, frequencies, airport information such as runway closures or the outage of an ILS system, this is critical information to pilots and they get it from us before they contact the terminal options. We use the National Airspace System (NAS) just as much as they do, and if we failed to issue any of this information we are held liable for our mistake, just like the other options.

7. Time On Position (TOP). Compare ours to the terminal or enroute facility and you will find that on any given day, flight service controllers work all of our day with the exception of a few breaks and lunch. Towers in the ATC 6 thru 9 bands have at least 4 positions to staff and often you will find one or maybe two people present while others take rotating breaks throughout the day.

8. DUATS. Most of the pilots that use the DUAT system still rely on flight service to explain to them weather that they don�t understand. The DUAT system is only an aid and is not totally reliable, many times I get request from pilots to re-enter a flight plan that they say was entered but when he called the tower for his or her clearance, were referred back to flight service. When they do enter flight plans correctly, they might have to make a change to that flight plan, I can tell you from experience that tower personnel are not very accommodating and again they are force to call on flight service controllers.

9. Accidents resulting from weather phenomena is the number one cause of aircraft accidents not collisions. Flight service controllers are able to influence a pilots decision on trying to depart on a bad weather day.

10. During the controllers strike in 1981, it was flight service that maintained the reservation program making it possible flights to continue so that millions of travelers could reach their destinations safely and timely.

11. After September 11, 2002 when all air traffic was halted it was flight service that was instrumental in helping air traffic resume. I can say that while most control towers and centers had no traffic to control, we here at flight service were hard at work, mapping out temporary flight restrictions and informing the curious and concerned flying public and informing the FAA of what procedures to follow. I am positive that without flight service for 1 day or even 1 hour the air traffic system would be crippled.

GREAT LAKES REGION

Jack O�Connell, Director and Alvin Robinson, Coordinator

BUSY TIMES
It has been a busy time lately. During the month of July a Board of Directors meeting was held in Alexandria, Virginia, near Washington. After spending two days at home it was then on to Oshkosh on the Monday. Just another short vacation, start the day at 6:00 a.m.., and end it around 8:00 p.m. or later for the next eight days. After packing the tent and equipment up Monday afternoon I was homeward bound for part of the night. The next morning I flew out of Toledo, Ohio for Washington, for the arbitration. Then back home on Thursday.

OSHKOSH 2002
NAATS again maintained a booth in the Fly Market to meet with pilots at the EAA Convention. During the Airventure 2002, we met with over 4,800 visitors. While we listened to the pilots concerns and desires, we carried the message to them that the air traffic controllers in flight service should not be contracted out. Many complements were received from the pilots for the service that you provide to them. They do not want your expertise thrown away. I would like to thank Harold Brooks FOD, Jim Davis CXO, John Dibble DEN, William Hawkinberry EKN, Harry Kancyr BDR, and John Pacitti MIV, for their time and efforts in meeting the flying public at Oshkosh. Using their annual leave to attend this event to represent your union is commendable.

NAATS Booth, open and ready for business	Harold Brooks Fort Dodge AFSS
Cow on Final Tee Shirt	An estimated 4700-4800 people visited the NAATS booth during the event.
Harold Kancyr -- Bridgeport AFSS Provided the photographs.	Wingwalker
More at www.naats.org/nnwsltr/osh2002\oshpix.htm.

 AV-WEB INTERVIEW
At the end of Oshkosh a reporter from Av-Web interviewed me. I guess that at times I come across rather strong. After delivering the message to him that the A-76 study was the wrong way to go, he stated in his article that I was waging a personal war against that type of initiative. I intend to continue.

TOURING AGL IN SEPT.
Next month I will be touring the Great Lakes with Wally Pike, Your president. We will not be able to visit every Flight Service Station during our visit, due to the size of the region. We will start in Cleveland on Monday September 23. I hope to get to Dayton, that evening for a visit. Then travel the next day to Lansing to meet with the members. Later on we will start out to Terre Haute. On Wednesday continue to Terre Haute spend time with them and on to Kankakee for the evening. Thursday will find us in Green Bay, and traveling part way to Princeton for part of Friday. Wally will fly back to Washington from MSP. I will then drive back home to Michigan.

If you need to reach me my cell phone number is 248-219-9979. The e-mail address is [email protected]. I can still be reached at LAN AFSS 517-327-7900. Voice mail is also available there at 517-327-7917. Please use these numbers if you need to reach me.

NEW ENGLAND REGION

Kurt Comisky, Director and Tom Halligan, Coordinator

Arbitrations & Grievances
The arbitration scheduled for August 15th at BTV has been cancelled. This arbitration was for the several drug and alcohol grievances. We came to a settlement about two weeks before the scheduled arbitration. There were two basic issues at dispute. First was the agency�s decision to stop placing the date on the top of the test list. The contractual issue was a change in working conditions without negotiating with the Union. The agency�s initial position was that this change was administrative, thus there was no need to negotiate with the Union. The effect of this change could compromise the statistical randomness of the random drug and alcohol tests. Under the original process, the date was stamped on the top prior to distribution to the region; this was the date the test was to be given. The date for the test may be changed for various reasons, this provided means to begin to track those changes and raise any questions through the grievance procedure. With the change, the removal of the date from the list, the decision on which date the test was to be performed was to be determined by those with direct knowledge of those individuals that would be tested. The Regional Substance Abuse Control Program Manager and the Facility Manager would determine the date for the random tests. Without making any accusations, it is obvious that the Facility Manager, by process, has the opportunity to select with individuals would be subject to the "random" test. The point is, by structure and process of the modified testing procedure, one could raise serious questions whether the process was truly random or of equal statistical chance. The Union believed this was a change in working conditions, and that change was more than de minimis. The change was substantial; the issue involved constitutional issues such as "search and seizure" and "due process." The agreement we came to was the return to the practice of date stamping the random drug and alcohol lists.

The next drug and alcohol issue centered on the validity and accuracy of the individuals identified on the random test list. It has been noted, on several occasions, that the test list did not accurately reflect the personnel assigned to the facility, thus the members at the facility did not have an equal statistical chance for random testing. I even heard that one test list contained the name of an individual that died more that one year earlier. The concept behind the issue is that if a random test list is not accurate, bargaining unit members do not have an "equal statistical chance" to be tested. The goal of the Union was to have a random test list that most accurately reflects the individuals subject to testing, thus providing an equal statistical chance. This goal must be tempered by reality; the program involves both the FAA and DOT, which are behemoth bureaucratic organizations. The agency has recently issued a Memo addressing the periods in which test lists are valid. The result of which is the test list that will not reflect personnel actions that are greater than about 104 days, depending on pay period dates. Considering the process to develop the test list, I consider this a good outcome, even ambitious. Adherence to this Memo will satisfy the Union�s concerns and achieve the most accurate random test list that is administratively possible. The settlement agreement identifies the Memo, which is now must be followed and any deviations or changes will be subject to the applicable contract provisions.

There were three grievances concerning initial pay settings, two grievances have been settled prior to arbitration and one will be going to arbitration. For the two grievances that were settled, the issue was whether the agency uniformly applies the concept of "highest previous rate" when setting initial pay upon entering our bargaining unit. Through preliminary investigation, the Union determined that the agency generally applies the concept of the "highest previously rate". The two individuals that were identified had their pay set by means other than "highest previous rate". Pay/grade setting issues are rather complex and take time to resolve. The issue was resolved in a meeting with Tom Davidson, the new ANE-500. It was refreshing to see a division manager demonstrate leadership, to take an actual interest in those in his charge and to assume responsibility for the employee�s welfare. The two individual�s grade will be reset, with the appropriate back pay. Because this issue was resolved by settlement, the underlying issue of the agency�s uniform application of "highest previous rate" was never determined.

The outstanding initial pay setting grievance involved an individual that was placed into our bargaining unit through the VRA program. The individual was on both the GS9 and GS11 list. The agency hired the individual as a GS9. According to agency directive, individuals hired into our option under the VRA program may have their initial grade set at GS11. Through preliminary investigation, the Union has determined that are individuals with similar circumstances have been hired as GS11. This grievance has been set for arbitration in mid October. The primary issue the Union seeks to determine is whether the agency may set the initial grade of bargaining unit members, who are similarly situated, differently. The agency will argue, among other points, that the individual signed an acceptance letter indicating the grade at GS9. Our response is that may be true, however once the agency has been made aware of the error, they have an affirmative responsibility to correct the error and make the employee whole.

The Union will also advance the argument that the employee is in a protected class and to set the grade at a lower rate than others similarly situated is contrary to public law. Further, the Union will argue the concept of "highest previous rate", whereas the individual�s initial grade was set incorrectly, the individual held a GS12/5 prior to entering our bargaining unit. Because this grievance is a matter of agency policy and public law rather that a he said/she said issue, we have agreed to do the arbitration by written brief.

The final grievance for arbitration relates to nighttime differential pay on other than duty status. My hope is to bring this grievance to arbitration by Christmas.

Pressing these grievances through the regional review and to arbitration takes considerable time and effort, by both parties. To some, the process seems slow. To achieve the appropriate result takes considerable time, the case must be built, the evidence must be gathered, and the issue must be researched. The point is, the settlements listed above and the upcoming arbitration are the result of hundreds of hours of work. If you have any questions on these grievances, give Tom or me a call.

FMCS Presentation
By the time this article is published, the decision by the FMCS will be public. A few thoughts, it is my firm belief that we have achieved the victory the moment we walked into the FMCS presentation. There will be many articles written on the decision of the FMCS, but the compensation negotiations were always more than just money, it was an affirmation of who we are. For their own advantage, some in the agency leadership took this opportunity to trash our role in the NAS. In a display of indifference, the leadership in Air Traffic stood by, there was no formal or informal retraction or attempts to correct the misrepresentations/lies. SupCom refused to comment on the agency�s characterization of our role in the NAS. Again, we are out there on our own. From the Flight Service facility managers and throughout the agency, everyone stood by and watched a character assassination. The misrepresentations, rather the lies spewed by the agency�s hatch men caused no one the agency to stand up and say that it was wrong. We are out there on our own and yet the pride and professionalism we demonstrate in the services we provide is stronger than ever. There is a considerable difference in the perceptions of our role and worth to the NAS between us and the leadership of the agency. The agency has stated their perception of our role in the NAS, we have a relaxed and carefree job, we talk to little planes and we make coffee for the pilots. The results of the FCMS presentation will be that either we are controllers and will be paid as such or I will endeavor change job to make it carefree, relaxed and have good/fresh coffee for all. Either way, we win.

An observation from a member from the field, when the agency states that they have no money for Flight Service for such items as overtime, management is not telling the truth, they have money, but do not choose to direct it to Flight Service.

A76 Process
A final thought, the A76 process is picking up steam. One aspect of the A76 process is the communications effort, which has been underway for several weeks. Jack Nimmo, a facility manager, is the management representative working the communications effort. In a recent meeting, we were discussing the communications effort and where it should be directed. It was Jack�s belief that the effort should be directed, not at the employees, rather to the facility managers. He believes the facility managers would be the best ones to communicate the A76 process. To be frank, I was stunned. For a few moments I was speechless. Jack believed that if any employees had any questions, they would go to the facility manager. This concept of a caring and involved manager ran headlong into my paradigm that most facility managers demonstrate poor leadership skills and self-serving. In my years both as a controller and involved in the Union, only on the rarest occasion does a facility manager take a positive and constructive interest in the employees in their charge. For the most part, I do not see the facility managers constructively supporting Flight Service, internally or externally, nor do I see them take an active interest in the concerns or development of those in their charge, generally they sit in their office protecting themselves and their own career. Now that the communications effort has been underway, I await the facility manager�s response to the serious concerns the employees have, I hope Jack proves me wrong.

Any questions, please call. 860 302 8401.

NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION

SOUTHERN REGION

Dave Hoover, Director and Tom Forte, Coordinator

The Southern Region has been chosen as the pilot for a new program called WEII, Work Environment Improvement Initiative. See the following website for additional information: http://www.faa.gov/aso/weii/WEIIhome.htm.

WEII is an offshoot of the Model Work Environment Program. As with all FAA programs, there is a significant amount of money that is attached to it for the purpose of travel, training, implementation, etc.

According to a letter from Administrator Garvey, (see above web site), WEII is an important step in developing a corporate plan that will help create a better workplace environment and help us provide better service to our customers.

As with most FAA programs, there are a lot of Pros & Cons associated with it. All of us would like to have an ideal environment free from harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. We (NAATS) fully support that vision. We support all FAA employees (Management and Bargaining Unit) being held accountable for their actions, especially those actions, which cause harm to the workforce and directly or indirectly cause a degradation of service to our customers. We support an environment where employees enjoy coming to work. We support a cooperative, equitable and friendly work environment. It would be foolish of us not to support a program that has all of these provisions.

Unfortunately, we�ve seen countless programs over the years that were supposed to improve the workplace environment and so far, none of them have been successful in the Southern Region. Why? Because Southern Region Management has never held their managers to the same standards that they hold the Bargaining Unit. We have seen numerous managers and supervisors repeatedly violating the principles and guidelines that are issued with these new programs, yet, they are not held accountable. If an ATCS makes a mistake, says the wrong thing, or violates one of these guidelines, it�s like a race to see how rapidly they can remove them from operations and discipline them.

In May, an investigation was conducted at Miami AIFSS because of the excessive number of Accountability Board Issues, Grievances, ULPs and complaints made by both the Bargaining Unit and the Operational Supervisors. This was the fourth intervention/investigation at Miami in the last 5 or 6 years because of the same complaints, and the first time the supervisors had officially made a complaint. At an all-hands meeting prior to the Investigation, the ASO Division Manger told the employees that he would take action this time and not come back with the same old "warm & fuzzy" recommendations of the past. During the investigation, the investigators led the employees to believe that action would be taken because of the serious trend of they had discovered. The lead investigator even made a call to the Division Manager stating that to take no action would cause more harm than good at this facility. The result of the investigation was a 40-page report that indicated that the management of the station was not and had not been doing their jobs for several years. It also indicated that the lack of leadership and poor management practices had been instrumental in the low moral and appalling conditions evident in the facility. Keep in mind that this was the fourth investigation and the results were exactly the same as the previous findings. Also, Southern Region Management elected to not include the NAATS Director in any part of the solution recommendation. Dave was intentionally left out of the process even though the intent of the WEII program is to keep the Unions fully involved.

The Southern Region�s recommendation as a viable solution was to take the four managers that were responsible for the facility being in the state it was and place them in charge of a series of workgroups to help the employees provide a better service to the customer. Nowhere in the report was the quality or quantity of service mentioned as a problem. The four managers who were identified repeatedly in the report as the problem are once again not being held accountable.

The Southern Region presented this recommendation to NAATS the week prior to briefing the facility. At this meeting, Dave requested that they address the problem that the report identified. Two days later they called Dave, accused him of being a "sharpshooter and a headhunter" and "not being a good partner" to the process. They refused to accept any of his recommendations. We decided that we could not embrace or support a program or a solution as biased as this one seems to be. Their findings and solution are like saying you have a leaky faucet in your home and to correct it we are going to replace your light bulbs. There was absolutely no logic in it! The employees and the supervisors asked for assistance because of bad management. Now the employees and supervisors are being held accountable for problems caused by management.

Dave came to Miami and presided over several impromptu Union meetings over a two-day period delivering the bad news and our position to over 40 bargaining unit members. Only one bargaining unit member (non union of course) out of 64 attended the WEII team�s briefing. The message was clearly sent!

In September, Dave and Wally have an audience with Fanny Rivera (MWE and WEII are her programs) at FAA headquarters to bring this issue to her level. The FAA needs to know that we cannot support the WEII program if this is an example of how it will be administered.

Terrorism 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.
 

SOUTHWEST REGION

Mark Jaffe, Director and Dana Colquitt, Coordinator

Hello NAATS members,

This is a hard article to write because of the timing of the publication. I have to submit my article to Eli Morrissy, the hard working lady who puts together this newsletter, by the 22nd of the month. I�m writing this on August 19th knowing that you will not see it until a couple of days after the mediator makes his ruling on our pay issues. That being the case, I�ll try to anticipate your concerns as if I was writing this article 3 weeks in the future.

Two Possible Outcomes
There are two possible outcomes to the mediation. Mr. Barnes rules in our favor and we receive a 13.2% raise in three installments retroactive back to October of 1999, or he rules in favor of the FAA and we might get 5.5% over the next five years.

Let�s suppose it is the middle of September and the mediator ruled in our favor on September 6th. Is your check in the mail? No. When can you expect it? Don�t hold your breath. This is just my opinion, but after the way FAA management has treated us throughout this whole pay process, I don�t think the fight is over. I will be not be surprised if we have to ask Don Young to legislate the outcome of the mediation. Mr. Young has said that he would legislate the outcome by the end of the year so we might have to wait a couple of months before our checks are in the mail. That�s as far out on THAT limb as I am willing to go at this time.

Okay, it�s the middle of September and the mediator had a huge brain cramp and ruled for the bad guys. Forget the previous paragraph because that doesn�t matter anymore. We are all angry because we didn�t get the respect and the raise that we deserved. In this case, a hand full of knuckleheads in Washington, D.C. will have destroyed morale and severely injured the work ethic of the entire Flight Service work force.

A76 Full Speed Ahead
On to other issues that call for less guessing. The A-76 study is going full speed ahead. The FacReps attended a briefing about the A-76 process, at the Regional Office, on August 8. Most came away from that meeting with a very pessimistic attitude about the eventual outcome. That was the second time I have seen this presentation by the contractor, Grant Thornton, and I don�t feel as negative about our chances of winning this thing as I did a month ago. The thing that makes me more optimistic is that we now have our national representative, Kate Breen, working with the group. Kate is an outstanding voice for NAATS and will protect our interests at all costs. We are also working on the legislative front and have hired a lobbyist to work this issue, exclusively. I believe that this will be a long, drawn-out, battle and every member can help defeat this issue. The contractors will be visiting several facilities and, right now, our job is to make sure they understand every facet of our job, no matter how routine or minor it seems to you. These job functions that Grant Thornton lists in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) will be the benchmark that a private contractor will use to base their bid on in the latter stages of the process. The more duties listed, the more difficult it becomes for someone else to come in and do our job for less money. I know this is complicated issue and will stretch out for another 2 or 3 years. I had a member in CXO, Cliff, ask if we were going to hide our heads in the sand or fight the A-76 issue, I believe that we are fighting this one every day. We cannot afford to hide from this and hope it goes away. I hope I haven�t confused everyone too much on A-76. As always, if you have questions, comments, or suggestions about A-76, call me.

Meetings Around the Region
I attended a Union Meeting in CXO on the 16th. Thanks to everyone that attended, I enjoyed talking to everyone. CXO has a new member, Denise Witschen. Welcome to NAATS, we�re glad to have you. Thanks to Dana for bringing the pizza.

I�ll be in SJT on August 24th.

If Dennis ever in stays home long enough, I�ll be going to ABQ for a Union Meeting. Hopefully, in early September.

Linda Sterling is arranging a meeting in JBR so that I can brief everyone on pay, contract and A-76. Ed is working on the same thing for MLC. I hope to talk to everyone by the end of September.

Something to Consider
One thing that I would like everyone to consider is the possibility of ratifying the work rules immediately instead of waiting for the pay issue to be settled. The pay rules and work rules are no longer connected since we decided to go to mediation on the pay. We are missing out on some good things in the new work rules such as OJT/CIC pay, unlimited credit hours, etc. that we could benefit from now. I am very interested in hearing from you on this issue. Your FacReps may have already talked to you about this, but if you have any questions, call me.

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION

Mike Stafford, Director and Bob Stanco, Coordinator

By the Time You Read This...
Once again, by the time you read this, a lot of new things will have taken place. Right now, we (the Pay Negotiation Team) are hard at work on the written rebuttal. Our rebuttal will be submitted on Aug. 30th, and a week later we should know the result. So, the decision will be out by the time you see this.

The Facts
We have put a lot of man hours and effort into this project, as we realize that this will likely be the most important thing any of us have worked on in our FAA careers. It�s tough to swallow the insults and denigration about our option that were thrown around by the FAA at the FMCS hearing, but we have to and move on, as where our case is strong is in the facts. We didn�t decide to call ourselves Air Traffic Controllers, the FAA did. We didn�t decide to write a letter promising us retroactive pay to 1999; the FAA did. We didn�t come up with the 13.2% parity figure; the FAA did. We weren�t the ones who called us an integral part of the Air Traffic Control system; the FAA did. We weren�t the ones who made a bunch of false promises and delayed our negotiations 4 years; the FAA did.

How Times Change
I remember at the "Flight Service Renaissance" in STL not very long ago, when the FAA was singing our praises, and talking about the future of Flight Service in glowing terms. How times change. I have been told by some FAA Managers that we shouldn�t blame all FAA Management for the crap that was dished out by their people at the FMCS hearing. Well, to me, Management is Management, and apologies just won�t cut it. I want the pay we are due, and I want it retroactive to October 1999 as they promised. It�s clear we will never get the respect we deserve from the FAA, even when they give it lip service as they did in STL -- so just show us the money!!



HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS

Scott Morrissy, HHR AFSS FacRep

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
First, I would like to welcome aboard Victor Morales who has just returned from the FAA Academy at the "Mike Macaroni Aero-Nutical" Center. We have received some good news that Frank Cortes will be transferring in from Rancho Murrieta sooner than expected. He will be joining us the week of September 8th. On the developmental front, David Graham has been certified on the NOTAM/Coordinator position and is now working on the Flight Data/Edit position. Kevin Bender is now certified on Preflight and will be moving on to Broadcast.

Congratulations to Bobbi Scoville on her selection for the Operations Supervisor position at Riverside. She will be departing the fix outbound early in November.

With at least one projected retirement for early next year and more potential retirements in the near future, the facility continues to bleed. We continue to operate under-staffed with shifts constantly running short-staffed. The Dropped Call Rate continues to increase and we have a manager who doesn�t seem to care about it. He�s more interested in saving his "precious" overtime.

NAATS President Wally Pike and Western-Pacific Regional Director Mike Stafford visited the facility on Monday, August 5th. This was Wally�s first facility visit since the FMCS hearing. It was a productive visit with lots of insight on what happened at the hearing. I won�t go into details here, since everything has been pretty well covered in his and other participants� updates.

ACCOUNTABILITY

by Eli Morrissy

Accountability -- that word has been bantered about quite a lot in government circles, most recently by Acting FAA Administrator Monte Belger with regard to Flight Service Controllers passing on TFRs. I do agree with Mr. Belger to some extent. We have a responsibility to provide thorough pilot weather briefings, including military airspace activity and TFR information. However I disagree with his attitude that we are solely responsible in this matter.

Where does the FAA Management�s accountability come into play? Decisions affecting our equipment and staffing come from a source much higher up the line.

If it was up to us, the FAA would have a fully integrated computer system that allowed data to flow seamlessly to and from Flight Service to Tower to Approach to Center with minimal human intervention. If it was up to us, we�d be working on state of the art workstations that allowed immediate access to weather, aeronautical and regulatory information, as well as providing for fully interactive pilot briefings. If it was up to us, the pipeline would provide a steady flow of new talent to replace those who, through proof of their competency in managerial skills, had moved up the line into management. If it was up to us, facility staffing requirements would account for human needs without having to schedule time for family activities nearly a year in advance.

If Mr. Belger seeks accountability, before he looks at us, perhaps he should first look closer to home.