|
Wally Pike, NAATS President The De Stefano family expresses their thanks for the many flowers, contributions and cards with condolences on Gretna�s death. The wake and funeral were well attended and Gretna will be missed by all of us. Note -- NAATS will have a full-page ad in the USA Today Monday, September 30, addressing the A76 issue. We would appreciate your thoughts and comments. Thanks to NE Regional Director Kurt Comisky for all his work on this. This from MCN FacRep Karey Hall - In a recent conversation with one of the congressional representatives, we (the PASS rep and myself) were told that due to computer viruses that many e-mail messages never reach the intended elected officials. Also, snail mail results in late delivery due to volume and special security handling due to the anthrax worries. A follow up contact with one of our Senator's staffers confirmed this. We were told the best way to ensure message receipt is to fax any messages intended for elected representatives. In response to a request the White House fax number is 202-456-2461. We had many congressional meetings again this week with continuing pledges of support. Particularly encouraging were the Sabo, Oberstar and Lipinski meetings. One of out objectives is to sensitize congress to the fact that they need to act affirmatively to stop the A76 study. It�s nice to hear them say that they won�t allow contracting out but they have to realize that the conclusion of the A76 will not require congressional approval. The meeting with Don Young is now set for next Tuesday. I�ll discuss his feelings on comparability and also ask him to intervene on the A76 study. I�m encouraged by this week�s congressional meetings. We have a tough fight ahead but we�re making progress. We�ll just have to work a little harder. Next week�s schedule is busy again with these meetings. I�m still trying to see Administrator Blakey but she�s swamped right now and not taking many meetings with anybody. We do expect to hear from the FAA next week regarding the TAU implementation. I�ve more to say on the subject of the TAUs and their ratification. I also have some things to say regarding other matters. I probably should have said something before now but it�s been a little busy lately. Let me begin by saying this is my last term. To quote a civil war general "if nominated I won�t run, if elected I won�t serve." Now before someone tries to assign a motive behind this, I want to state categorically that I�m not burned out or beaten down by the FAA. Not nearly. I also feel that I�m a more effective and knowledgeable representative than previously and I enjoy what I do. I�ve served as a NAATS representative in some capacity continuously since 1979. I�ve always considered this a privilege and an honor and I�ve never taken the membership confidence for granted. There�s no group of people I�d rather be around than NAATS members; it always recharges my batteries to visit the facilities and interact. I�m committed to resuming these facility visits just as soon as time allows. Fact is, I�ll be 56 in two years and it�s time for me to move on. I don�t have any plans and I don�t know what I�ll do. The reason I state all this now is to remove any political considerations from what I�m about to say. The part that I don�t have a lot of patience for is destructive, internal union bickering. I�m not talking about honest disagreements or constructive criticisms. I�ve had sincere disagreements, sometimes adamantly, with several members over the years - Mike Puffer, Margaret Ames, Al Osborn, Mike Ramsey, Andrea Chay, Phil Brown, Kyle Pitts, Mike Sheldon, Margaret Hamilton all come to mind but there have been many others. These have always been issued-based and I�ve always respected and appreciated their input. I�ve never doubted their motivation. They perform a very necessary task of ensuring facility membership opinions are expressed and addressed. The overwhelming majority of our membership is and has been endlessly supportive and patient. My problem is with that miniscule minority that, for whatever reason, seems to enjoy creating turmoil by misrepresenting facts. It can be disheartening to have to stop working on significant membership issues and to have to deal with people who deliberately confuse the issues. These are the facts.
I will certainly acknowledge that the TAU ratification wasn�t marketed to the membership as well as it should have been. That�s my responsibility and I accept it. No excuses. One last matter -- e-mails. I try to respond to each email but there are exceptions. I�ve had emails that have gone beyond the pale. One guy said that he was not only going to whip me (cleaned it up a little here) but also everyone on the pay hearing team. Seems his reasoning was that we had accepted a pay increase he didn�t like. Another one said that I was some kind of "moroon," whatever that is, and that I belonged in an "aslum." When the criticism gets personal I don�t suffer fools, I just delete. It�s my observation that some people say things in e-mails that they won�t say in person.
No doubt some
will use this message to generate more e-mail traffic, but they�ll have to
do it without me. There are bigger, more important issues to attend to. By Wally Pike, Federal Times, Sept. 23, 2002 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has acknowledged that the remarkable air traffic control efforts in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks could not have taken place without the flight service station (FSS) controllers. Already critically short-staffed, the FSS employees absorbed a fourfold or greater increase in workload and were instrumental in accomplishing the mission during the trying days that followed. The FAA air traffic controllers working in control towers and radar rooms swung into action to safely land thousands of aircraft nationwide in the space of a few hours, effectively deterring further attacks. That is not the whole story. The other part of the story begins with the air traffic controllers who work in 61 automated flight service stations. Fight service controllers were responsible for dissemination of the shutdown order to air traffic facilities, airports and pilots in flight within their individual areas of responsibility. They also issued notices to the aviation community regarding airport restrictions and outages of electronic aids to navigation as the shutdown progressed. After the initial shock of the tragedy wore off, passengers and pilots from grounded aircraft began asking the inevitable question, "When and how are we going to get home?" Record numbers of pilots nationwide began dialing into the flight service stations they relied upon for weather and flight-planning information to find out what was happening. Initially, information was scarce. Everyone was waiting for word from FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C., on when flights and air traffic services would resume. As data became available, the flight service controllers began to explain how the multiple, complex and sometimes convoluted restrictions would affect each pilot who called, depending on the classification of the aircraft in question. Through it all, flight service controllers pitched in to serve the flying public. Some from stations in Islip, N.Y., and Leesburg, Va. -- facilities near the sites of the attacks -- even came in on their days off to lend a hand during the crisis. Incredibly, the reward for these employees was an FAA announcement on June 18 that it was conducting a study on the feasibility of privatizing FSS operations. The FAA has determined that 80 percent of the FSS duties are subject to further study for outsourcing. Among these duties are preflight pilot-briefing services, inflight aircraft services and search-and-rescue services. The only duty determined inherently governmental is providing notices to pilots. Fairness aside, the FAA actions are ill-considered and ill-advised for safety and security reasons. Do we really want the lowest bidder providing in-flight and preflight services to pilots? Coordinating search and rescue for lost and overdue pilots? Monitoring navigational aides? What about the liability for these services if a private contractor provides them? The FAA feasibility study shows potential homeland security issues in these and other areas -- but nevertheless, the FAA decided to continue down the slippery slope of privatization. The FAA has advised the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists that this decision was made by the agency and not because of pressure from the Office of Management and Budget. The last estimate is that this outsourcing study -- being done under OMB Circular A-76 -- could last two to three years and cost the FAA $9 million or more. This is, at best, an extremely shortsighted use of scarce resources. It is hard to believe that FSS is the ultimate target of this privatization effort. If the FAA is successful with FSS privatization, then that provides the blueprint for contracting out all the rest of air traffic control. It is no secret that FSS is the sacrificial lamb when the agency has bigger plans because, by comparison with the larger FAA unions, we have less clout and influence. Appeals to the FAA have fallen on deaf ears. Naturally we have talked with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and we have been assured there will be no privatization of air traffic control. The A-76 process, however, continues unabated.
Some functions
should be inherently governmental. We feel that all of air traffic control
meets that definition. Our hope is to convince new FAA Administrator Marion
Blakey of this and to stop the folly of her predecessor.
Bill Dolan, Chief Negotiator General Update of Current Issues OASIS Consoles Last month I talked about general mid-term bargaining rights and procedures. This month I would like to take this to a more practical level. We currently have an MOU that discusses what should be accomplished at the local level reference OASIS site surveys and consoles. Management at the HQ. Level (Rich Jehlen/ATP-400) is currently attempting to reduce the number of console at most facilities. After numerous meetings, I have informed them that the floor plan for each facility that has already received a site survey has been established through negotiations at the local level. This would include the number and location of consoles to be installed. Any changes would have to be proposed by local management and renegotiated locally. If the previous agreement was done in MOU form and re-opener language was included this language would have to be followed. If not, the site survey should have been signed by both the FacRep and the ATM. This constitutes a signed agreement. Now, what should you do if the ATM proposes to re-open the previously negotiated site survey numbers? Follow the contract! First, review Article 9. Then you should: 1.) Request a briefing on the proposed change. Be sure the briefing is thorough. It should include; What management wants to do. How they want to do it. And, Why they want to do it. Ask for copies of any documentation they have to support the change. Discuss in depth how management came up with their new numbers. Find the flaws in their reasoning. The briefing is not complete and time limits for the next step do not begin until all of your questions are answered and you receive any requested documentation. Be sure to inform them of this fact prior to the conclusion of the meeting. Follow this up with a written statement that contains both your understanding of their proposal and the request for documentation, along with a statement regarding the time limits for a response. 2.) Present management with your response in proposal form. If you disagree with their proposal explain why and make a counter-offer. If they think the numbers must go down and you think they should be increased, say so in your counter-proposal. Explain why the union takes that position. 3.) If you find that you cannot reach agreement, again, follow the contract and declare impasse. Give management a written statement as to why you don�t believe reaching an agreement is possible and send a copy to your Regional Director (RD). The RD should then set up a negotiating session with the appropriate people in the R.O. If these talks should also end up at impasse, your RD should also state this in writing and refer it to the national level for continued negotiations in accordance with Article 9 of the CBA. Cru-X Just a reminder, we have not completed negotiations regarding the use of this software to implement LDR. The only MOU in effect at this time allows the use of Cru-x for the purpose of signing in and out only. Management may play with the software all they want but there are no requirements for bargaining unit employee use at this time. We are pretty close to an agreement on the use of Cru-X but it is not yet final. A-76 I don�t have a lot to say on this subject right now. The Agency is again kicking us in the ass. One thing I cannot stress enough is that this is serious and we need to fight it together. Anyone not a member of NAATS is, in effect, working against us. Other than representing them only as far as the law requires, I would not give them the time of day. Keep up to date on the latest information on this issue and get involved. Congressional correspondence is vital. Kate Breen has sent out a package to all reps to guide you. Contract Ratification The list analysis of the TAUs and the pro�s and con�s of each was not meant to be an in depth discussion or a rational for each article. It is only intended to point out the differences between the existing CBA and the tentatively agreed upon new one. You need to read the TAUs carefully and understand what they contain. There has been some discussion surrounding a few of the TAUs and what are perceived as give backs to the Agency. All I can say to this is "that�s what negotiating is, giving some to get some." The contract negotiating team was comprised of the people you elected to represent you and they did a pretty damn good job of it. Are there some things in it that I don�t like? Of course there is. All things considered, do I think it is a good contract? Yes. Could we do substantially better if it were re-opened? I doubt it.
My personal opinion, ratify and move on!
By Chet Dembeck, Federal Times, Sept. 16,2002 The Federal Aviation Administration has launched a study into the potential savings of outsourcing 2,400 air traffic specialists� positions. Air traffic specialists man 75 flight service stations throughout the country that provide pilots with flight plans and the latest weather information. They also assist pilots in search-and-rescue missions. William Shumann, a spokesman for the FAA, said the study began in late August and would be completed within 16 months. Shumann said the study did not represent a decision to privatize the jobs. We�re just initiating a competitive-sourcing study under the rules of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76," Shumann said. The circular requires competition between contractors and federal workers before federal jobs can be outsourced. Wally Pike, president of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists in Wheaton, Md., said the study is already acting as a morale killer for the 2,400 air traffic specialists. "We�re already short-staffed," Pike said. "Now, the FAA wants to hand safety over to the lowest bidder." The study comes less than two months after President Bush�s June 4 executive order removing the term "inherently governmental" from the definition of air traffic controllers. That technically would allow the administration to allow private-sector competition for air traffic control jobs, However, Shumann said there are no plans to do so. The administration has said the change was to recognize that some air traffic controller jobs at smaller airports already are filled by contractors. "Air traffic controllers are not the same as flight service specialists," Shumann said. "They don�t perform the same functions." Pike disagrees with FAA�s assessment. "It is a first step," Pike said. Moving from a federal work force to a private contractor is not necessarily a bad idea, said Robert Poole, who advised the Bush campaign on transportation issues. Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Public Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Los Angeles, has been leading a campaign to privatize air traffic control. He lobbied the White House to remove the inherently governmental designation from air traffic controllers, but said he had no information that the study of air traffic specialists� jobs is a step toward outsourcing air traffic controllers. "But the air traffic specialists study could lead to some good savings," Poole said. "We might find we can do more for less."
Poole said he believes that overseeing the safety of the
nation�s air traffic is an inherently governmental task, but that
controlling traffic is not.
September 27, 2002
Bill Shumann Dear Mr. Shumann: As I indicated in our discussion this afternoon, NAATS is very concerned about your continued misrepresentation of members of our bargaining unit as being other than air traffic controllers. You were quoted in the September 16 issue of the Federal Times as saying "Air traffic controllers are not the same as flight service specialists." You also stated the same in the A76 meeting yesterday. You didn�t deny either occurrence in our discussion. You are incorrect. You are directed to 5CFR842.802. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8335 and 5 U.S.C. 8425 apply to flight service air traffic controllers the same as center or terminal option controllers. You might also want to check the FAA�s own web page for the definition of an air traffic controller and then you could stroll down to Human Resources and look at one of our position descriptions. I find it very troubling that someone in your position of responsibility does not check out the facts prior to providing misleading information to the public. I ask that you take all actions necessary to correct this problem promptly. Sincerely,
Walter W. Pike
Kate Breen, A76 Representative -- [email protected] Before I begin on the update, I would like to take a few minutes of your time to talk about someone very special. The NAATS family lost a great employee and true friend this week, Gretna DeStefano the NAATS office manager. In my years of working with and meeting people, I have never met anyone with more courage and grace than Gretna. She worked as hard as she fought the cancer that took her and loved her family and friends even harder if that�s possible. I will miss her terribly and if you call the NAATS office for something, please offer your condolences to her daughter-in-law Denise and her friend of many years Shirley. For those who don�t know, let fill you in on a little tidbit, management reads the WebPage and newsletter so if this seems a little watered down, please contact your regional director or me for further details. That said, here is what I have for you all after my meetings on the communications plan this week. The last regional briefing was held this week in New York, other briefings to be done are to the FAA headquarters staff in Washington, Congress/Senate, and user groups. The briefing in New York went almost 4 hours and was said to be a little more lively than the briefing in Southern Region last month. According to the Ron Page the ABU (financial) focal on the project, the government employs people to take care of law enforcement and military issues, but should not be in the "business of being in business." Another piece I found out this week is that the duties people perform in Human Resources (HR) are considered "inherently governmental," no not because of privacy issues surrounding personnel records, it�s because they issue an oath of office when needed. I put these two pieces in to get you all to see how screwed up this whole process is and the urgency to stop it now. Excuse me Mr. Page but we keep the military moving and aid law enforcement with INS and Drug Enforcement issues! Let me spell it out for you all, the agency is pushing ahead with the A-76 study and if you haven�t gotten the urgency or seriousness of that piece yet, wake up and smell the coffee before you start serving it! You should all know by now what it is you need to be doing in our first step, if you�ve been living in a cave or the FacRep in your facility has not been forwarding information to you please let me or your Regional Director know ASAP. There will be no in-person briefings at the facilities in the field, providing the communications plan gets approved by the management working group this week, the field will get a taped briefing if they chose to watch it and a binder to include the slide presentation, feasibility study, frequently asked questions and answers, and a monthly update of the progress. There has been no movement yet on developing the team for the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or the Most Efficient Organization (MEO). The next thing for the agency to do is get the communications plan in place and then decide how to handle the rest. I suspect in the next couple of weeks I'll be able to provide you more information on the set up of the teams. Bill Dolan and I met with the agency counterparts on the MOU for this and Bill will discuss it at the BOD meeting next week with a counter offer to the agency by 10/18/02. So far the agency has only been getting inquiries from what they consider the 3rd level of the news media, first levels of the news media are papers like USA Today, New York Times, or Washington Post. They (the agency) feel if they get out to brief the hill first, it puts them on a better footing and they won�t have to defend themselves as much. I hope your pens have been busy and your trips to the post office have been frequent. Now is the time, whether you have 10 days or 10 years to retire, your professionalism and caring for the pilots safety and security over the years should not end with the agencies misguided attempts to save money and make them look good in the politicians eyes. One last thing, it seems that some bargaining unit members are not logging/counting the work they are doing.... Why??? Please log the briefs you do. As it stands right now, the agency does not count everything we do. Please, please log/count the things they allow us to. As the process continues to unfold, it could be very important. Thanks for your time, let me know if you have any questions.
Jeff Barnes, National OASIS Representative 09/17/02 - I have sent the questionnaire we developed to ATP for their comments and for them to send to the regions and facilities that have had OASIS Console Site Surveys or more. The question is simple. Are you satisfied with the placement of the equipment in your consoles (as installed or planned, depending on how far you are in the process)? If yes, cool. If no, then we want to know what problem(s) you have, how many and what type of consoles they affect, and why it�s a problem(s) for you. There is a signature block on the form for ATM and FacRep so we�ll know that everyone had input. These will come back to Air Traffic at headquarters who will send them over to Requirements (where I do most of my work) who will identify the requirements to address the problems. They will send the requirements to the Program Office who will determine cost and a schedule to implement the fixes. Ain�t bureaucracy grand? Anyway, this will follow the proper procedure so no one will be able to use that as a roadblock anymore. I will stay on top of this so that it will get to you as quickly as it can work through the chain. For those of you who have not been site surveyed yet this should no longer be a factor. I�ll beat on the dead horse one more time (I�ve become somewhat of an expert at that on this program)... In accordance with the NAATS/FAA MOU on OASIS consoles and Human Factors Team decisions there are only two requirements for equipment placement in the OASIS consoles at this time.
As I�ve reported before, OASIS is facing a money crunch for the next fiscal year. We were shorted five million dollars and there was no significant effort put out to get it back as far as I could see. Doesn�t mean it didn�t happen, just that I certainly wasn�t in the loop on any such effort. Anyway, what that means is that the equipment moving that needs to be done may take a while to complete due to money. We won�t know anything for sure till we get the surveys back and are able to analyze what needs to be done. I�m sure that safety issues such as moving the Denro frequency selectors from the right side to the left side will be given our highest priority. The moves that are not safety related will come after, but again it could take some time. I am here to make sure it happens, but I can�t promise it�ll get done tomorrow. Only that I will do everything in my power to get it done as soon as it can be. When the new fiscal year gets here we are going to start coming to facilities that haven�t seen it yet to demo OASIS. The Human Factors Team has two laptops that can hook into Seattle (SEA) or Anderson (AND) remotely so we can use one of them and a projector to give demonstrations. The initial plan is for a member of the Human Factors Team to hit two AFSSs per month to demo the system. We have not begun to work on a schedule yet, although I hope we can put together something soon, at least for this coming year. However, the Human Factors Team is extremely busy now working with Harris to identify the fixes and enhancements that will go into the next software drop after St. Louis (STL) so I�m not sure when we will do the demo schedule. We�re looking at some pretty neat stuff right now that I expect to see in that next software drop. Of course, due to the hard work of the Human Factors Team and the Harris engineers, EVERY drop has had neat new stuff in it. In addition to showing you OASIS, it�s time to show it to the world. Dennis Detrow and Dave Hoover were at NBAA in Orlando demonstrating the system. We will also be at AOPA in Palm Springs and ATCA in Washington, DC coming up soon. An interesting bit of information came from NBAA... Uniformly, after seeing the system the question asked was, "When do we get interactive briefings? I want to look at this stuff while you are briefing me on it." Jim Perkins and I will be making sure this is heard when we are discussing the integration of DUATS into OASIS. We are continuing to look at more events where we can demo OASIS to our customers. I expect us to be at Sun �n� Fun and Oshkosh next year, and several other events are being looked at. Feel free to send me any suggestions. And speaking of the next drop after STL...by the MOU it is supposed to be the tenth site, Buffalo (BUF). However, it may be moved back a couple spots to CXO. If this happens it will be to migrate the OASIS onto a new operating system...either Windows 2000 or .Net Server depending on how confident we and Harris are as to the stability and security of the .Net Server at that time. The reason we have to do this is because Microsoft will not be supporting Windows NT any more, which is not acceptable in the OASIS operating system. The operating system OASIS uses has to be supported so that problems will be resolved when created or discovered in OASIS due to the operating system. The timing on this could also necessitate some slip in the Conroe (CXO) installation. This is by no means a sure thing, and if it happens there will be no shuffling in the waterfall. It just means that CXO could be installed up to a few months late to ensure the system is fully tested before being released to our world. This should not impact the remainder of the scheduled installations. In current thinking there is enough room between CXO and the next installation (again due to the budget shortfall in FY2003) that no further impact will be inflicted on us because of the delay at CXO. I do not want to see a delay at any of our facilities. However, I am absolutely insistent, and this is supported by the test organization, that the OASIS be thoroughly tested on the new operating system to make sure nothing is broken by it (this is in addition to the testing of all the new fixes and enhancements we do prior to taking any new software drop to the field). I will keep you advised on this and will make sure to get the Human Factors Team decision regarding this out to you as soon as I can after it's been made. As always, feel free to call me or e-mail me any questions/news/rumors/suggestions you have. I�ll give you whatever answers or support I can to see that the OASIS deployment to your facility goes as smoothly as I can make it. Also, and this is especially important. FacReps...if you are not being listened to or engaged in every bit of the process of OASIS and the consoles at your facility, let me know! At headquarters everyone understands that the FacReps have to have an equal voice in this. If your management is not engaging you let me know so we can get to work on fixing that immediately! Finally, as of right now we are finding that the integration of OASIS into the AFSSs goes smoothest when there is a single point of contact for the union and for management at each facility for OASIS issues. This can be the FacRep, or someone designated by the FacRep in the case of the union point of contact. This helps by letting the program know who they should be talking to. This should be someone who will become the local subject matter expert on OASIS at your facility as it goes through the installation process. I would recommend that this person be someone who will be part of your local training cadre also. This person will be given exposure to OASIS as soon as possible prior to it coming to your facility so that he or she will have a better understanding of what the needs are for the program, and will be able to effectively communicate the needs of the facility to the program. I think the setup at AND is ideal with the union and management empowering both the management and union points of contact to make decisions for the facility regarding OASIS. It would be nice to see that done everywhere, but it's hard to imagine that kind of progressive thinking in very many management offices. Regardless, this person will be treated by the program as a partner in this process. This is an opportunity to keep the membership informed on what is ahead for them as OASIS gets closer to deployment at your facility. The directors may wish to formalize this process. That will of course be their call. When a decision has been made I would like the name and contact information for the person so I can pass that to the program. We�re already behind the power curve on this for some facilities, so I�d like to try to get this done soon so we don�t slip any further. You can reach me by phone at 703-582-6616. This is my cell phone. I travel so much I won�t even bother listing my office phone.
Last month�s article entitled "History of Our Criticality to the ATC System" was mis-credited to AEA RegCo Ron Consalvo. The article was actually authored by AWP RegDir Mike Stafford. - Eli Morrissy, Editor
ARS Report Jim Perkins, ARS Liaison -- [email protected] AFSS IIDS -- Integrated Information Display System We are continuing to work towards the Requirements Document for the AFSS IIDS, but despite the aggressiveness of the project lead, it appears this is going to be a long drawn out process. Hopefully I�m wrong in my assessment and things will pick up speed as we continue our work. Again any input as to what you would like to see on and IDS would be appreciated, it�s your system why not ask for what you want. Friends and Partners of Aviation Weather A small contingent of the "Friends and Partners" group met on September 3rd to continue discussions surrounding the National Weather Services desire to transition to a graphical format for the area forecast. This graphical forecast would include what we currently call "AIRMETs" and the term "AIRMET" (under the new system) would be used in effect to describe Amendments to the area forecast. I stressed that at this time Flight Service graphics displays would not allow for this type of interactive product to be displayed and utilized. The FAA will be talking to the OASIS product team about the ability to display it in OASIS, but we will still be receiving a textual forecast of both the FA and AIRMETs until full OASIS deployment. A major push behind this project seems to be a desire on the part of the NWS to fall more in line with ICAO. On a positive note the Canadian weather service is very interested in the product our NWS is developing, and may in the future be going to the same format, which would be significantly easier to use than their current graphical area forecast. I also suggested the NWS officials talk to the Mexican officials to check their interest. The next scheduled meeting for this workgroup is October 10th. Aviation Weather Products and Services Assessment I accompanied a team from ARS-200 to Chicago for a weather assessment the last week of August. During the week we interviewed personnel from various ATC facilities, FSDO, the NWS and student and instructor pilots from the Chicago area. Thanks to the three people from IKK who drove up for one of the afternoons: David Carmona, acting ATM, Tim Leary, staff specialist, and Rene� Rausch from the BUE. The questioning was generally centered on how people felt about weather products and services that were currently available. However in each of the sessions that involved pilots, I used my time to encourage them to visit IKK or any other AFSS. Among the younger pilots there seemed to be a lack of knowledge of what services we provide in flight service. But it was encouraging to here some of the older pilots say they wouldn�t use anything but flight service for their briefings, especially these days with constantly changing TFR information. One item I heard the pilot groups mention several times was the desire for more PIREP information. While at the same time some of the control facilities in the Chicago area admitted that there is a problem with PIREPs being passed on to flight service for entry into the system. Hopefully this is something that can be corrected in the future. NSTS -- NOTAM Short Term Solution A two-day meeting was held September 10th and 11th, to discuss development of a test plan for NSTS and the NOTAMs multi-domain project. I know we have been verbally given dates in the past for seeing equipment deployed to the field for testing only to see those dates come and go with out as much as a "I�m sorry we didn�t make it," however Gary Mileski (ARU-200) and Matoka Forbes (AUA-400) both gave me their commitment that they would push to complete the required paperwork so key site testing could begin by the first of December. They also assured me that whatever was needed (i.e. Overtime or other resources) would be made available for this process. I hate to get my hopes up, but maybe someone has figured out how critical this issue is and relief is on the way. One of the items still required is our national article 9 briefing. I advised Gary Mileski that we would need to have firm dates and time frames included in that briefing, and he agreed, so hopefully we will have something in writing fairly soon. ATP Report Scott Malon, ATP Liaison -- [email protected] NOTAMs NSTS A positive move has occurred within the Multi-Domain NOTAM program. AUA-400 has accepted the responsibility for total program management, integrating both the Tower/TRACON initiative (NOTAM distribution to AT Facilities) as well as our NSTS project (NOTAM delivery to the AFSS operational position). This initiative is long overdue, having spent months struggling to proceed at the "near term" speed necessary to field this solution to our AFSSs. This integrated approach should ensure that tasks required of the program are distributed properly to those with the expertise necessary to complete the tasks successfully. ARS Liaison Jim Perkins and I are hopeful that this will continue the NSTS program down the �near term� path to national deployment. As of press time, the rough timeframe for key site operational testing is December and January, with Macon AFSS as the initial location, followed shortly thereafter by Cedar City AFSS. This is predicated upon the completion of both NAATS and PASS negotiations, both nationally and locally. Assuming successful site testing of the NSTS, a waterfall is being drafted in ATP to continue field deployment past key sites. Since this waterfall will also drive the Tower/TRACON initiative, NATCA has also been involved in the process. POINTER NOTAMs Several issues have been elevated to me regarding the GENOT for Pointer NOTAMs that was issued on August 29th, 2002. Let me speak to some of them, based on my understanding from dealing with ATP-320 on the matter:
I hope this helps to some extent. I will continue to update your Directors as procedural issues with this GENOT are resolved. SUA/ISE Some update item(s):
Voice Switch Steve Glowacki, Technical Liaison All AFSS Controllers, We are now in the throws of post award efforts. This is the time when the FAA and Northrup Grumman are discussing and debating what was meant by the language in the contract. As we know this is always a laborious process resulting in last minute fires, and haggling, etc. Also resulting from this process are realizations that the contract as signed may have some "holes." Because of this, there is a portion of the product Team�s effort focused on resolving each as they�re discovered. So far, the impact of this for us has been minimal... a word tweak here, a rephrase there... so with the purpose of satisfying one of the many lawyers or contract officers. There has been no operational impact from any of this. Anyone who has bought a house has experienced this type of review and adjustment... We�re still planning on getting the Human Factors Team to meet for a week or two in October for a kickoff. The Product Team is viewing this as a needed and serious meeting, understanding the benefits of a team that is educated to work toward a single goal. Now, that the FAA has selected their management members, I feel VERY confident and satisfied that the only issue that will be discussed is "How do we make this work the best for the controllers." But as we know, the proof will be in the pudding. So far the biggest dilemma is where meeting will be held. Due to the budget crunches, there is some pushback from the higher ups to not have the meeting outside of the Wash, DC area. My perspective is that the meeting location and the pace of the schedule should be the priority and not the perception of how "politically correct" the trip looks. In the past, management has continued to send supervisors from around the country to places like CMD and the Poconos regardless of the budget situation.... I�m confident that while they consider that the AFSSVS Human Factors Team decisions will impact a $60+ Million program that things will work out. I�ll keep you informed.
NAATS Office Manager, Gretna DeStefano passed away on Saturday, September 21st after a long fight with cancer.
Gretna was a tireless worker for NAATS and an extremely
professional, She will be sorely missed by all of us. Our thoughts and sympathies are with the family during this time of loss.
-- Wally Pike
Provided by Paul Burke, BGR AFSS September 6, 2002 Dear Mr. Burke, Thank you for your recent letter outlining the continuing difficulties within the Flight Service Option. Because of my involvement in FSS issues, Mr. Boyer as asked me to respond to your concerns. I�d like to preface what follows by saying I too am an active pilot and long time user of the Flight Service system. In the 15 years I�ve been flying, Flight Service controllers have provided me with excellent service, and I very much hope that future (as well as current) generations of pilots continue to have access to this very important resource. As you pointed out, today�s Flight Service System looks very different than that of 25 or 30 years ago. In spite of our best efforts, not all of these changes have proven beneficial to Flight Service or the general aviation community. The questions of contraction and further consolidation are difficult to reconcile, however, it is clear to everyone involved that things cannot continue as they now are. Even with the rollout of OASIS, Flight Service is still being deprived of many of the essential tools needed to better serve their customers. Given current FAA practices, the gap that exists between Flight Service and state-of-the-art will only continue to grow, and that hurts the entire industry. Moreover, with over half of the Flight Service workforce eligible for retirement and an alarming lack of replacements, the issue of maintaining a quality workforce must also be considered. Pay issues aside, I will provide AOPA�s position concerning the bullet points presented in your attachment:
Response: The same could be said of all air traffic services and is misleading because the FAA has historically encouraged pilots to file flight plans and use air traffic services. Most would agree that doing so increases safety system-wide and it is inappropriate to discourage the filing of flight plans or the use of FSS for enroute weather advisories or the collection/distribution of PIREPs.
Response: Weather provided by a local controller is very tactical in nature and not as comprehensive as that given by a Flight Service controller. Typically, towers are only able to provide reports passed along from a pilot who has recently passed through a similar route of flight. In short, it is not the tower controller�s job to give weather "briefings," and it is not a role for which they are well equipped.
Response: The role of Flight Service is not to separate traffic. It has nothing to do with the inability of the personnel to perform the function; it is simply a matter of the role which they are tasked with performing.
Response: These small aircraft account for two-thirds of the flight operations in the national airspace system. Moreover, because such aircraft often operate in a lower altitude stratum, in non-crew served aircraft, without the benefit of dispatch support or on-board weather avoidance equipment, the need for Flight Service is even greater.
Response: Flight Service controllers provide information critical to safe flight to thousands of pilots each day. AOPA�s goals mirror those of NAATS, to provide the aviation community with the safest, most well managed flight service system possible. To this end, we wish to work collaboratively with both NAATS and the FAA in building tomorrow�s Flight Service System. In closing, I would like to emphasize that in spite of the rhetoric that has been circulated (and your attachment is but one example), Flight Services are an integral component in maintaining the safest air transportation system in the world. AOPA thanks you and your colleagues for your efforts toward that end.
Respectfully,
Deb Townsend, Sitka FSS I had an interesting call at work the other day and thought you would all enjoy the story. The phone rang at about 10am and the voice on the other end said, "this is going to sound really weird, but..." I love it when I get that preface. He went on to explain he was a pilot calling from the D.C. area and had just logged onto his Flight Explorer program to check some weather. (Flight Explorer program tracks IFR flights, among other things) What truly alarmed him was that his airplane callsign came up on the program on an active IFR flight plan, currently over the Puget Sound area heading to Sitka. To say the least, this was a highly concerned pilot, U.S. citizen, etc. Obviously post 9/11 and more recently the "Special Security Alert" that was thrust at the flying public has given a situation like this a sobering concern. There was no doubt this was not this pilot�s airplane. His plane, a PA24 was on the ground in Maryland, while his callsign was being used by a C310, flying at that time in the Seattle area. To me, this is exactly the kind of information the FAA has asked these pilots to be alert for. Would you agree?? Apparently alertness is all they require, because this pilot attempted to call the FBI. He was transferred to a voice mail and subsequently hung up on. Next he thought the perfect place to call would be the "Hot Line." Not so. They told him to call the TSA. Duh! Of course that�s who he should call. That�s the whole idea of this newly formed agency, right? No, the TSA said the pilot should call the Hot Line. He was so frustrated with the run around and total lack of concern, he called someone he knew would be interested, Flight Service (especially since they were headed our way!). End of story, all ended up well. The callsign was being used by accident and it was all straightened out.
www.AOPA.com, September 26, 2002 AOPA has learned that tomorrow the FAA will issue a new NOTAM, significantly revising the infamous "Catch 22" NOTAM governing flight near large open-air events. AOPA sources have confirmed that both TSA and FAA have approved the revisions. The new NOTAM will follow AOPA recommendations, limiting airspace restrictions to major stadiums seating more than 30,000 people and limiting the effective time of the restrictions from one hour before the event to one hour after. Aerial advertisers and others needing access to the airspace during the event will be able to obtain a waiver after passing an expedited security clearance. "This is a significant improvement over the old NOTAM that prohibited flight within 3 nautical miles and 3,000 feet altitude of any major professional or collegiate sporting event or any other major open-air assembly of people," said Melissa K. Bailey, AOPA vice president of air traffic. "It�s specific to locations and times. However, there is still no adequate provision for VFR use of non-towered airports near these major events." AOPA is continuing to push for language that would permit aircraft to land and take off from these airports using approved flight paths. AOPA has been working for months to obtain this NOTAM revision. The association repeatedly advised FAA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that the original NOTAM was vague, unenforceable, and ultimately unfair to pilots. AOPA provided specific documentation to FAA and TSA on the number of airports, aircraft, and pilots affected by the NOTAM. AOPA President Phil Boyer and other AOPA staff met with FAA and TSA officials to get the NOTAM changed, the most recent meetings this week. The new NOTAM will prohibit aircraft from flying closer than 3 nm and 3,000 feet AGL of stadiums seating 30,000 or more people during the time a Major League Baseball, NFL, or NCAA Division IA game or NASCAR race is occurring. The flight prohibition extends from one hour before to one hour after the event. However, aircraft that are under air traffic control are permitted to land and take off from airports near the event. The new NOTAM will also reinstate waiver procedures to allow certain operations near the stadium. Operators can apply for a waiver online at www.faa.gov/ats/ata/waiver/. Pilots will be able obtain a provisional waiver through an expedited criminal background check. "TSA has come to understand that banner towers and other aerial advertisers provide a legitimate service and aren�t a security or safety threat," said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior vice president of Government and Technical Affairs. "We compliment TSA for creating a system to respond quickly to waiver requests."
The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the authors and in no way reflect the position of the Union or its elected or appointed officials or liaisons. FSOSC & the TFR Mess Gary Gustafson, Lansing AFSS In light of the controversy surrounding the FAA�s current methods for handling TFRs, I have some comments regarding the FSOSC and TFRs. I was a member of the initial FSOSC group last winter, as well as was Tim DeGrazio. The original group of 10 consisted of 7 NAATS selected flight service controllers and unexpectedly, 3 FAA management members. The management members were OM�s and higher. I went to Washington excited, motivated and enthusiastic about participating ON A TEAM THAT MIGHT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I wanted to be a part of big changes in the NOTAM system and TFR issues. I thought the agency was seeking input, suggestions, and solutions from its flight service controllers. Unfortunately, reality slapped me in the face within the first hour of reporting for duty at HQ on January 15th. To make a long story short, we were basically disowned and un-directed from the moment we arrived. We had no place to meet, no desk to call our own and we were definitely not there to change the system. We were directionless for about the first 3 weeks that we were there, and were almost sent home early. It was incredible! Instead of sending us home, it was decided that we would complete our stay by evaluating the Jeppesen FliteStar TFR Plotting Software. The FSOSC group ran a test with selected AFSS facilities and completed a report that was presented to Jeff Griffith at the conclusion of our stay. While evaluating the Jeppesen software, we also came across errors and inconsistencies in the issuance of TFR NOTAMs. All of this was included in the final report. Included in the report was the recommendation that the Jeppesen software was unacceptable in its present form. Of the hand full of recommendations made by the FSOSC, I have not personally observed any changes or corrections in the way TFR NOTAMs are issued. However, the FAA has implemented two recommendations. One was the recommendation that the FSOSC continue to exist to carry on the work it had started (we were dead otherwise). Another recommendation was the further evaluation of any modifications of the Jeppesen software, should Jeppesen choose to correct the problems -- and the evaluation of other available software. Tim DeGrazio was a member of the original group and I think he was an excellent choice to be selected to return to carry on the work. NAATS went outside of the original group and selected Patsy Rowe from CXO to join Tim. I truly believe that Tim and Patsy are doing their very best to carry on the mission of the fledgling FSOSC, BUT the FAA is so dysfunctional that their progress is going to be slow at best. The FAA can�t even "put its money where its mouth is" and support the effort to get TFR graphics into the field. All the agency can do is shove more and more mandates and confusing information down our throats and hold us responsible for their incompetence. The Jeppesen FliteStar TFR Graphic Software is going to be nice, when we get it. The best we are being offered right now is making the graphic available on two computer platforms in every facility. That doesn�t do you much good at your individual briefing position. At Lansing, we have a TFR plotting software program developed by Whitney Johnson. Whitney is currently working as a staff specialist and was a NAATS member in good standing prior to taking the staff detail. Whit is the creator of the ENL (Electronic NOTAM Log). Whitney�s TAPS (TFR Automated Plotting System) program accesses the official FAA NOTAM website, compares the official site with the TFR NOTAMs currently stored in the TAPS program, identifies new and cancelled NOTAMs, then plots a "dot" on a US map identifying the location of a TFR. The process does require some manual intervention (supe in our facility) to validate data, but is very quick in delivering the data to ALL briefing positions equipped with a WSI screen. In fact, in a race between Jeppesen and TAPS from the moment the new TFR not am hits the FAA not am website, TAPS would win in getting the information distributed and displayed for all FSS controllers. It is a great system -- and developed by one of our own! Jeppesen�s software allows you to view the specifics of a TFR (exactly how it looks on a sectional chart). TAPS does not do this. TAPS places a "dot" on a continental US map (marked with ARTCC boundaries), and identifies the TFR with its associated FDC NOTAM number. There is no zooming in as with the Jeppesen software. It has been my experience that Whit�s TAPS program is an excellent tool to identify TFRs along a route more than 95% of the time. Once in a while, it would be nice to have the detail that the Jeppesen program has. However, Jeppesen is not here yet, and it will not be available at every briefing position for some time. TAPS is available HERE and NOW. In fact, TAPS can be used in conjunction with the Jeppesen system in that if TAPS shows a TFR of concern along a route of flight, a flight service controller can then consult with the Jeppesen system for the details. Okay, all of that blabbing to get to this point -- you can view a sample of Whitney Johnson�s TAPS program at http://www.jcn.com/taps. If you like what you see and want more information, you can contact Whit at [email protected]. The administrative number for Lansing AFSS is 517-327-7900. Whit�s program is here, now, and it works! A76 -- the Bottom Line Elinormarie L. Morrissy, Editor I think it�s time to take a long look the FAA�s motivation for insisting on forging ahead with the A76 process. There�s more to this story than meets the eye and Management hasn�t been very forthcoming in explaining their motives. If FAA management were truly interested in saving money and becoming more cost efficient, they would consolidate the current nine Regional Offices down to a maximum of four -- Eastern, Central, Western and Alaska. They would apply the A76 process to administrative functions like payroll and personnel management, rather than to the field functions that give the agency its reason for existence. They�d also be cutting back on management positions and consolidating managerial functions. Are any of these things happening? Contrary to FAA protestations, the current A76 study is not about saving money by finding the Most Efficient Organization. Timing tells a different tale. The agency started talking about doing the A76 study on us back around March/April when NAATS began to talk about going to arbitration. They then commissioned the feasibility study in May, which was complete in a little over a month -- with no validation. It was June when the President changed the executive order, removing the "inherently governmental" designation from air traffic control. The agency made the official announcement to go ahead with the study on August 20th -- after NAATS surprised the FAA side with a very convincing presentation before the FMCS. A couple of Senators have even expressed surprise that this process has moved ahead so quickly. Could be that the FAA realized they bore a serious risk of losing to a bunch of Flight Service "specialists" on the pay issue and got scared? After all, if NAATS succeeds in getting parity with tower controllers or even just succeeds in getting more than the 5.5% pittance that was forced down everyone else�s throats, what kind of precedent would it set? This situation smacks of coercion against the NAATS bargaining unit -- combined with a not so subtle threat for anyone else who might want to get uppity toward FAA management. This strategy is a double-edged sword and I don�t believe that the FAA hierarchy has fully considered its implications for the future of labor-management relations within the agency. If NAATS� grassroots efforts succeed and congressional action either halts the process or re-designates air traffic control as "inherently governmental," the FAA could find itself in a very tenuous position with all of its unions. After the despicable, union busting tactics used against NAATS during this contract negotiation, how can FAA management expect anyone to trust their word on anything. If, on the other hand, A76 does succeed and contracting out of air traffic services moves forward, a sizeable number of FAA managerial and support personnel will join the NAATS, NATCA and PASS bargaining units in facing an ominously uncertain future. Obviously, I�m rooting for our grassroots efforts to bear fruit. But they won�t, unless everyone in the Flight Service bargaining unit -- union and non-union -- participates. It�s time to convince our congressional representatives of the folly of this action. We also need to keep spreading the word through the media. Face it, after seeing example after example of corporate malfeasance and mismanagement over the past months, could any sane person believe that the American public really wants their safety subject to some contractor�s "bottom line?" It�s time to stand up and defend not only our livelihoods, but also our part in protecting the security of our nation�s skies. After all, does anyone think a bunch part-time contract weather readers could do what we Flight Service Controllers did on September 11th and during its aftermath? And that, brothers and sisters, is the real bottom line.
FAA Press Release, September 9, 2002 The Department of Transportation�s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will develop and implement within the next year a plan to establish public use of an innovative air navigation concept called "Required Navigation Performance" (RNP) that will significantly increase capacity and efficiency in the nation�s airways.
RNP evolves the U.S. National Airspace System from a
ground-based design to one where aircraft can take full advantage of
advanced technologies for precision guidance in the en route (high-altitude)
and terminal (about a 40-mile radius of the airport) areas. Potential
benefits include allowing more precision approach and departure paths at
airports and keeping aircraft clear of obstacles and terrain. "We intend to be the world�s leader in realizing the efficiency and safety advantages this concept can provide," said Nicholas Sabatini, FAA associate administrator for regulation and certification. A recent FAA policy statement on RNP commits the agency to moving forward on a plan to establish public RNP airspace and procedures over the United States. RNP defines the accuracy requirements to fly in certain airspace. While it does not specify that an operator carry a specific type of navigation equipment, it does require an automation capability aboard an aircraft to fly a specific flight procedure, such as an instrument approach into a particular airport. RNP is possible thanks to increasingly sophisticated levels of automation for positioning and navigation aboard aircraft. Aircraft have used onboard computers for many years under the concept of area navigation (RNAV): flying point-to-point without following a zigzag course dictated by the location of ground-based navigation aids. RNP improves that capability, providing more efficient design and use of RNAV procedures. The FAA believes RNP can also provide substantial safety benefits. For example, RNP will allow precise vertical and lateral guidance, similar to the Instrument Landing System (ILS). This benefit is possible not only in the final approach phase but throughout the entire descent from cruise altitude, and can be implemented at runways where no ILS capabilities exist. Because of improved positioning and navigation capabilities, aircraft will be able to land at airports in lower visibility than is allowed today. The concept will simplify training, allowing pilots to practice just one type of instrument approach instead of the multiple types currently in use. Alaska Airlines has pioneered the use of RNP for air carrier operations, using an FAA-approved RNP/RNAV instrument approach into Juneau under lower weather minimums than those possible with conventional navigation aids. Several member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have implemented RNP in their airspace, and it is used in some areas of international airspace as well. The FAA is working with foreign civil aviation authorities to harmonize policies and standards so that RNP can become the "global common denominator" for air navigation.
Brought to you by FedWeek.com FEHB Rates Climbing Again, But Tax Break On Way Premiums in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program will climb an average of 11.1 percent in the 2003 plan year but a new tax break (see items below) that will be available effective next July will ease the pain to enrollees somewhat. The Office of Personnel Management announced that starting in the open season that begins November 11, enrollees will be able to choose from among 188 plans, some of which have essentially held the line on premiums and a few of which will show small decreases. However, the 11.1 percent average is the fifth year in a row of increases at or around the double-digit range, with fee-for-service plan premiums rising an average of 10.5 percent and health maintenance organization premiums up an average of 13.6 percent. That translates into an average increase for the typical self-only enrollee of $4.45 per pay period and $10.21 per pay period for the typical family enrollee. Even with those rises, OPM officials said, the increases are at the low end of premium hikes being experienced by state and local governments and other major employers. As in past years, OPM officials said rising use of medical care and prescription drug costs are primarily to blame for the increases. New APWU Plan Could Set Precedent Meanwhile, the American Postal Workers Union will offer a revised approach to coverage in the 2003 plan year, with a so-called "customer-driven" plan that will have a structure unique to the FEHB program. Under the APWU plan, enrollees will have $1,000 for self-only coverage or $2,000 for family coverage to pay co-payments, deductibles and other out of pocket costs, as well as some additional procedures such as dental and vision care, without incurring a deductible. If they exceed that amount, they will have to pay the next $600 out of pocket. Afterward, coverage will be available on a standard fee-for-service basis, with the plan covering 85 percent. OPM officials called the program the type of innovative approach the program needs and indicated that other plans might follow suit in the future. NARFE Raises Concerns Federal and postal employee and retiree organizations for years have worked to oppose one new type of plan in the FEHB, the medical savings account concept that features low premium, high deductible plans coupled with tax-favored accounts to pay the deductibles and other out of pocket costs. The concern has been that such plans would drain off relatively healthy enrollees, forcing other plans to raise premiums and/or reduce benefits. While the APWU plan is not an MSA, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees has said it is "fearful about the precedent this sets for the program and the slippery slope we are about to descend." Federal unions are expressing similar concerns. ALASKA REGION
CENTRAL REGION Michael Terry, Director and Jerry Van Vacter, Coordinator Visiting It�s hard to believe that 2002 is winding down already. Jerry and I still 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. Facility Columbia. Chuck and Dan are finishing up talks with management on the watch schedule numbers. I believe we have three different schedules people will be looking at. Columbus. We have a new member; welcome aboard Daniel Siegel! Wichita. They had a potluck luncheon on Sept. 11th. The ATM and FacRep came to an agreement on an exercise area in the facility basement. On the beginning of the week the ATM at Wichita decided to have an All-Hands meeting starting on Wednesday. The problem is he forgot to mention (let along call) his counter part, who happened to start his RDOs on Monday. What a surprise when he came in and found out they were having them and he was scheduled to go in. Nice Communications! Jerry and I have talked to Jon about where to go now. Fort Dodge. Jerry indicated that Harold Brooks went in for some tests on Sept. 19th. We hope everything is okay for him. Paula is in discussion with her ATM on the watch schedule and staffing numbers. Meetings The next quarterly meeting has been scheduled for Nov. 6th and 7th. Jerry and I will be having our monthly LMR meeting in Kansas City on Oct. 2nd to discuss issues and work on the agenda with 501 and 540. 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 at the meeting 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. Staffing Has anybody figured out why they started counting everybody in the world when it comes to facility/region staffing? For example; Fort Dodge has 6 supervisors (only 3 of which are authorized) an OM (not authorized), an ATM, 2 Support Specialists (only one of which is authorized and an AO. That gives Management 11. They have only 24 FPLs! If all the BUE that were eligible to retire did, then there would only be 17 Specialist for the beginning of 2003. Management is tripping all over each other in Fort Dodge, but not to support the specialists. It takes 2 Support Specialists, OM, and a Supervisor assigned to the front office because there is not enough work for them to do in operations. Yet the training frequently consists of a clipboard item. Grievances and Arbitrations Nancy Batye and I were successful in winning our first arbitration in Central Region since we were trained to be advocates. It was a case involving a removal due to medical de-certification and FAA not conducting an adequate job search for her. The bottom line was FAA did not follow their handbooks when conducting a job search for the grievant. The arbitrator directed the FAA to reinstate her to a position for which she is qualified at the GS-12, Step 8 and, if necessary, conduct a thorough job search on her behalf. He further directed FAA to pay her an amount equal to all the pay, allowances, or differentials, as applicable which she would have earned or received during the period had the unwarranted personnel action not occurred, less any amount earned by her through other employment during the period for which the unwarranted personnel action was in effect. Such amount shall be payable with interest. (That will be back to July 1999!) This was a good win for NAATS and the grievant. Thanks to all that played a part in it. I have sent a copy to John Dibble to be posted on our web site. We have two grievances left at the national level. We should decide shortly whether or not we go to arbitration. Just a quick reminder on the Cru-x. The only thing we are supposed to be using it for is to sign on/off. Bill Dolan is working on a MOU for other features it has. Becky Fox, Wichita AFSS is the regional rep. and Kate Breen is the national rep. Send in your ballots for the ratification. Ballots will be counted on Oct. 6th. I will let you know ASAP of the outcome. EASTERN REGION ALTOONA AFSS NEWS Dave Vitko, AOO AFSS Reflections I watched as Marine One and an escort helicopter flew at tree top level just a few miles from the development where I live. My house sits on the downwind leg for runway 33. It was a cold, gray overcast day and very fitting for the one-year anniversary of 9-11-01. I snapped some photos and watched silently as the helicopters slowly made their way southward. Five minutes earlier President Bush had landed in Air Force One at the Johnstown Cambria County Airport (JST) and transferred to Marine One. He was on his way to visit the United Flight 93 crash site near Shanksville, PA. The site is 15NM southwest of my house. As Marine One flew into the distance I felt an emptiness experienced by many Americans from the loss of our innocence by the terrorist invasion. I am sated daily in knowing how Flight Service Stations across the country contribute to general aviation and our government�s security after the 9-11 attacks, by interpreting the myriad of NOTAMs and TFRs issued as a result. Everyday as a Flight Service Specialist I deal with the after effects of September 11th just like every other ATC employee in the country. The patriots of Flight Service should feel a special connection to the tragic events of 9-11 bridged by our efforts to convey a sensible image to general aviation. Other News The installation of the new consoles is complete. I feel they are definitely an improvement. We are now awaiting OASIS. One of our own, Beth Gerritts will be accepting the position as the NAATS ATX Liason (Resource Management), in Washington D.C., in October, at the FAA Headquarters Building. The position provides recent experience from the field for advising the FAA on programs pertinent to the bargaining unit. Beth says, "I�m looking forward to working in the new position for a year." Check out this website for graphical TFR NOTAMs. http://airspace.blm.gov. I recently had the opportunity of listening to John Carr, NATCA President, speak on C-Span. I must say he is a very eloquent and articulate speaker. The Altoona Airport Authority has authorized construction of an FBO right in the middle of our parking lot. The parking for employees will be across the road to the west. The existing FBO seems to be too close to the terminal building. (A result of 9-11 new regulations.) I wasn�t going to mention the ongoing pay negotiations with the FAA, but I can�t resist. You think they could of got a little more creative with all their "high priced" talent. That reminds me, "Gotta run, coffee�s done." LEESBURG AFSS NEWS Curt Lasley, DCA Alternate FacRep A-76 Briefing Or, serving up a poop sandwich and expecting me to believe it�s roast beef. The FAA finally got around to giving the Eastern Region our A-76 briefing on Tuesday September 24th. Most notably absent from the meeting was Flight services own "subject matter expert," Marilyn Jackson-Brame. Why was she not there? If you were in the process of selling out the people of Flight Service would you show your face in your old region? No you would not. She apparently took the old saying to heart, if you can�t stand the heat... I would love to say the FAA and Grant Thornton representatives learned from past meeting and came armed with answers to our questions, but alas it was not so. Forrest Gump said "mama always said is stupid is as stupid does." I was never quite sure what that meant until I sat through this "Briefing." For over 3 � hours we listened to what they had to say and held their feet to the fire. It�s safe to say that the meeting could have lasted much longer but with flights to catch it had to be stopped. I went into the meeting believing the FAA was looking to contract us out. I came out believing two things. First, it�s about cutting our pay. The FAA is going to give the contractor(s) the buildings and equipment, and provide the liability coverage. The only thing left is salary. Second, and most importantly, it�s about consolidation. This way they get NAATS to buy into it to "save jobs." We were told there is always room to do things better and more efficiently, save money. We are Air Traffic Controllers. Safety and Security are the key points to remember. Can anyone tell me how much that accounts for in the budget? One thing kept tickling the back of my brain during the meeting, but would not come forward until the briefing was over. We have to go through the region and D.C. to do anything, to change anything and to get anything. We don�t sign contracts we don�t do budgets, we don�t go to resorts for Managers meeting, we don�t make policies. We have never wasted hundreds of millions of dollars developing a system only to shelve it because it does not work (Digital DF ring any bells, or how about the original sector suites). Yes reorganization is needed, but not in the field. It clearly needs to happen at the H.Q. Levels to those that are the living embodiment of waste, fraud and abuse. If you were wondering, as I was, what companies provide the same services that Flight Service does as mentioned in the Grant Thornton Study the answer was, "all three that are interested currently provide these service." When asked did they verify this, the answer was, hold your breath here it comes... No. The three companies told us they do. It just seems the 2 "subject matter experts" would have been able to enlighten them on this. Finally, if a private company is already doing all that we do, it is doing so for FREE. There is no need for us to exist, so why is Congress funding us and why has the FAA, year after year paid for something that the public gets for free? Because they are feeding you a poop sandwich and telling you it�s roast beef. GREAT LAKES REGION
NEW ENGLAND REGION Kurt Comisky, Director and Tom Halligan, Coordinator Ratification of Work Rules By now you should be receiving the ballot for the ratification of the work rules. There are questions concerning the process, this is intended to explain the reasons for the separation of the work and pay rules. Some time ago there was a belief by many in the Union to link the work and pay rules. The main reason to link the two was the belief that to link the pay with the work rules will create an incentive for the agency to actively pursue the pay; the link was used as a tool in the pay negotiations. There may have been, at one time, some desired benefit from the linkage, but that all evaporated when the agency refused to bargain in good faith. In the spring of this year the final work rules were completed. The pay still languishes on. Whatever benefit or tool that the linkage sought to provide has since been rendered ineffective. For some time the work and pay rules have been taking an increasingly divergent path. As of the spring of this year the relationship between the work and pay rules has been severed. The decision to separate the work and pay rules was made after long deliberations. I ask each of you to give considerable thought to the long road we traveled and where we will most likely go. Ask yourself what is the history of the agency in negotiating a fair and equitable compensation package. To many, the agency�s action crossed the line of negotiating in bad faith. What would a reasonable person expect the agency to do in the future, what are the likely scenarios? It has been my experience in dealing with the agency, at the Administrator�s level, that there is an obvious lack of integrity and creditability. The pay has been on its own track, when and how the issue will be resolved is still unknown. I will not speculate on the final outcome, however upon reflection of all the possible scenarios, one must agree there is tremendous uncertainty. From my perspective, the separating of the work and pay rules was a mitigation of the risk in dealing with the agency. Also, sending out the work rules for ratification now is intended to further mitigate the risk of dealing with the agency. I ask, when making your decision on whether to ratify the work rules, to look at them on their own. The agency and the Union negotiated for years to achieve agreement on the work rules. The question for each one of you is, will the work rules provide greater benefits and protections? Any questions, please call 860 302 8401. NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION
SOUTHERN REGION Dave Hoover, Director and Tom Forte, Coordinator Work Environment Isn�t Important WEII (weee two). The newest of many a failing attempt by the FAA to "just get along." After an extensive investigation into the continuing saga of poor leadership and management support at MIA AIFSS, the results are in. "We2" has uncovered a total break down in quality management that has been allowed to perpetuate over 7 years and three other separate interventions. Miami managers, supervisors and bargaining unit employees all concur that a change, at least in structure, of management is the only hope in salvaging what once was the world�s busiest Flight Service Station. Supervisors and bargaining unit employees were promised a different outcome from this intervention. "You2" really do deserve a better place to work, they said. Interviews were conducted by, supposedly, four independent interviewers. Without exception, all three segments (managers, supervisors and bargaining unit members) indicated that a change in management, the "FAB FOUR" (ATM, AATM, OM1, OM2) would be necessary if the facility was to have a chance of returning to its glory days. Seven weeks after the interviews, two private meetings between the Intervention Team and Regional FAA management and their wisdom is revealed. "Identify leadership qualities and train the MIA management on how to exhibit them. Put management in charge of insuring that services and support material expected of management be identified and in the future be provided by the bargaining unit or management will hold the BU accountable." Obviously, the Union was intentionally left out of any regional briefings, resolution brainstorming, and action planning determinations. ASO-500 was not bashful in owning up to his decision to exclude the Union. After all, he only needed to trick us into participating in the initial interviews in order to access the money and additional management positions that come with the "We2" program. Yes, even "Me2." According to some of the members of the Intervention Team, they were given specific orders to omit most of the data supplied by supervisors and bargaining unit members. Upon further discussion, they said that regional management impressed upon them that this was an FAA sponsored process. I indicated that I was surprised that they would allow regional management to influence their conduct. They replied "Us2." I took the issue to Fanny Rivera, someone at the Headquarters level that continues to dream up these types of games (QTP, MWE, Partnership). She insisted that the problems at MIA were not issues that "We2" was created to address. No kidding. The interest at that level is pure, find a new program that targets improving the work environment and find someone to sponsor it with money. A successful program is one that endures the longest and spends the most amount of money before being declared ineffective (failure). I am optimistic that the next such fluff program will be appropriately named "PU2." It was previously agreed to pilot the "We2" program in the Southern Region. The Union concludes the test an overwhelming failure and will withdraw from any further participation. It is my recommendation that the NAATS Union not permit any further testing or deployment of this program into other regions. The �New� MIA AIFSS Management is attempting to identify and learn those traits one would think was a necessary qualification to be promote into their current positions. Surely, they are measurable. Having already previously identified their absence and given the chance to improve you would think the region would feel the obligation to take action. The Southern Region denies any knowledge relative to previous issues with MIA management. Apparently, One FAA is a myth. It appears to be convenient not to keep records on management, and then someone coming from another region can plead ignorance. September 10, 2002. Send up any flags for you? Not in MIA. �Twas the day before 911 and all through the facility no management was stirring, not even a supervisor. That�s right not a single manager or supervisor in the facility to support operations, the numerous "National Alert" issues, the employee tension of the upcoming anniversary of the most horrendous day in American History. We don�t know where the "FAB FOUR" were, but we do know that the supervisors were told by regional "We2." Enthusiasts to go off site and work on the supervisor watch schedule. It would have been bad enough to just have the MIA management dessert the operational bargaining unit employees. But, that didn�t happen because management, PIE AFSS, refused to take any traffic from the CIC. Even though they called five consecutive hours, Bob Fishman, acting up as usual ATM, refused to help the little people left behind to run MIA AIFSS or the many pilots calling Flight Service for assistance during times of heightened security. Welcome to the "Day by Day" plan for work environment improvement. Just heard that one of those intervention interviewers got a promotion. I�ll bet it�s to one of the "We2" positions created to spend the region�s new found operating money. A76 was in town (MIA), September 18 and 19. A walk-thru on Thursday Morning completed the "overwhelming process." The two Grant-Thornton people have no aviation background or knowledge and had to be led thru each and every position with basic training on anything pertaining to our job. Last week a bargaining unit employee agreed to work comp-time to supplement the deficient staffing. After several hours, the employee and the supervisor agreed that they were no longer needed and that the employee would go home at the top of the hour. Sometime afterwards, one of the "FAB FOUR" informed both the supervisor and the employee that they could not leave because the Drug and Alcohol circus was coming to visit. You bet they did, made her stay, even though they were technically on their RDO and off the schedule. A grievance will be filed for 8 hours of overtime. Not worth asking how this contributes to a better working environment. Must be part of the "Day by Day" plan for harmony. RDU AFSS I have been told that a bargaining unit member has come up with a simple way to post graphically the TFRs. It takes about ten minutes, but when you are short staffed, priorities say get to the pilots. Several attempts have been made to enlist the assistance of the watch supervisors in posting the TFRs. Certainly, a tangible benefit to operational personnel and the pilot. No way, say several of the supervisors and upper management refuses to make it happen. "We2" has found a new home. I�ll let Peacock know that the supervisors in RDU AFSS are too important to give ten minutes of their time in support of operations and his high profile TFR program. Grievance filed for violations of common sense and teamwork. MCN AFSS MCN supports informational picketing along side PASS. May be a sign of things to come in our near future. ASO Regional News Rick Day has reviewed the OASIS Console Validation Decision Paper from ATP-1, dated June 24, 2002, and supports the recommendation for a reduction in Console requirements by ATP-400 in the Southern Region. That means that he has given his blessing to eliminating the need for 18 Consoles and another 34 will sit empty because he doesn�t believe they should get any OASIS equipment installed in them. The original Console requirements were negotiated with the NAATS Union; however, Mr. Day did not seek Union participation in developing his new plan. Sound like the same strategy used on the "Day by Day" We2 Plan? Look around you folks. The Southern Region is giving away equipment, training slots, staffing opportunities, and next your job. Hold your hand out to the FAA and ask for help. Belittle the Union because they don�t work fast enough for you. Take cheap shots because things are not going your way. Go ahead and quit, the FAA is always there for you. Contract Ratification Could have been done better, no question. However, there are also some false statements being bantered by a few, probable even in this newsletter issue. 1. The membership voted to keep work rules and pay rules tied together. Did not happen, never did. When did the Union send out ballots to the members to conduct such a vote? True, attending members at STL and at a national convention were briefed by the BOD relative to the value of keeping them united until after all negotiations had been completed. True, it was agreed that that would be in our best interest. A show of hands at a special meeting or national convention does not constitute a vote by the membership. The coupling of the work and pay rules has always been a strategy adopted by the previous BOD during negotiations. I don�t remember the elements of that strategy, but that�s ok. As of June 2002, all negotiations over the work rules were completed. As of July 30, all negotiations and mediation efforts with the FAA over the pay negotiations was complete. For those that cry that we must keep them together, what is the value? That�s all I ask, what is the value, now? 2. The membership has not had an opportunity to review the TAUs prior to voting. The TAUs have been published for more than 18 months. Every FacRep was told to print a copy and review with their membership. The previous BOD and national officers took suggestions, recommendations and feedback regarding the TAUs. At GNV we made a red Union Binder. Most members didn�t care to even take a look. Claims that not everyone has access to the Internet or the hard copy is lame. Anyone with an interest in reviewing or discussing the TAUs could have done so, either locally with their FacRep or through Headquarters. But that is really not the issue. The fact is that the work rules were completed by the previous BOD long ago, except for 5 Articles that revolved around CIC, OJTI and like issues. There has always been the understanding that the TAUs would not be reopened for fear of having to open all the Articles, which would take us back to square one. I believe the TAUs were negotiated to maximize our benefit. Current and previous Union representatives who trash the very Articles in which they negotiated have either sold us down the river during negotiations or working their own personal agendas now. It does not matter whether our Union chooses to ratify the work rules now. Are we to return to the bargaining table and start over? What new work rules Articles would be offered by sending ballots out again? One Article has been identified as something less than the current contract. The debate is over "compelling need" (old language) and "consistent with the necessary functioning of the Agency" (new language). True, "compelling need" is a higher standard, but not necessary, nor is it easily enforced. The new language of "consistent with the necessary functioning of the Agency" is prolific through out recent FLRA decisions. I believe the previous BOD knew and accepted that language, as did NATCA, albeit they call it something like "operationally necessary." Nonetheless, if you have no interest in CIC and OJTI pay. If you don�t care to convert sick leave to pay upon retirement, if you have no interest in accruing unlimited credit hours, then please do not ratify. I hope that you have found something besides the loss of "compelling need" to justify your decision. Closing I began my term insisting that your Union Representatives look to the issues and get out of the business of focusing on the deficiencies of management. A76 is a program aimed at fixing what management has messed up and can no longer fix. Their only answer is to start over. I am sad to admit that "management in the Southern Region" is definitely the problem. We must prevail. ST. PETERSBURG AFSS NEWS Richard Anderson, PIE AFSS I am still having quite a bit of heartburn over this work rules ratification vote. It is apparent to me that many people were unaware this vote was coming and were surprised to receive their ballots. It is also my belief that many of the membership may still confused about whether or not the work rules will go into effect before the pay rules issue gets resolved. Wally has been reported to have said as late as Aug. 5th that the work rules would not be implemented until the pay issue was resolved. It is also my understanding that when queried at previous conventions, the members professed their desire to keep them tied together. We apparently have changed our course of action and have not properly queried the membership if they were willing to change their position, or informed them of such. The timing seems to be a bit ill conceived with all of the additional distractions of our pay ruling and A76. Couple that with the lack of being forewarned about the BOD�s intentions, and limited information about the new contract, I am reluctant to make a decision about ratification of the contract at this time. The TAUs have been available on the web site for some time. I did a preliminary review of the articles some time ago, but quite frankly the format was somewhat convoluted and difficult to read. Plus with the information that we would vote on the work rules at the same time (albeit as a separate vote) as the pay rules, I did not concern myself with a comprehensive review since we have yet to resolve the pay issue. The TAU analysis was inadequate and 1 copy per facility of the TAUs does not provide easy access. (Yes, it has been available on the web site, but not all have access to the web.) Given that our constitution Article 4, section 7 states that all "regular members" "shall be entitled to be furnished with the text of any proposed changes and deletions together with their ballots" makes me question if this is a legal ratification vote. I do not think what we have accomplished here would meet the definition of "together with their ballots." I also believe that this ballot should have been conducted utilizing the double envelope for privacy, although that is not specified in our constitution. Being told "some think that the reference to �compelling need� in the old article being deleted is a major loss however I believe the new language in sec 2.f. is consistent with FLRA decisions on the subject" is unacceptable. I would expect that the team knew what the difference meant before it became part of a TAU. The members deserve this information to make an intelligent decision on these issues on their own. I am not trying to discredit the work that anyone has done on this issue. I understand that our elected officials have other equally important issues to deal with right now, and I do appreciate the efforts they are making on our behalf. It would appear though that this decision was made in some haste and the groundwork was not properly laid. However, I believe the only proper course of action at this point that will preserve the integrity of this ratification and our Constitution would be to cancel this ratification vote (before the deadline) and conduct the vote in the manner in which it should have been conducted. Although this may seem like an unnecessary expense, (which may or may not have any bearing on the outcome) the members deserve the opportunity to have full knowledge of what they are voting on before they are asked to vote. In
view of the above information I urge you to tell your Facility Rep., and
e-mail your Director and NAATS Headquarters that you want this ratification
election declared null and void. Insist on being told exactly what you are
voting for before you are asked to vote. i.e. will we or will we not
implement prior to a pay agreement and what is the difference between
"compelling need" (old language) and "consistent with the necessary
functioning of the Agency" (new language) etc? SOUTHWEST REGION
WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION Mike Stafford, Director and Bob Stanco, Coordinator OASIS We just had an issue at HNL where an attempt was made to arbitrarily reduce the number of consoles that were going to be installed. Your FacReps should remember that this number was a locally I&I�d figure, and cannot be arbitrarily changed without negotiation between the FacRep and Manager. I have sent out an email on this earlier, but I want to reiterate it, as when the time comes to install these consoles, there should be no confusion on the number that you will receive. STAFFING All Facilities in this Region have suffered reductions in staffing over the years. With a limit of 98 bodies going through the Academy each year, we are obviously limited on the number of trainees we will receive. This past fiscal year, we (WP Region) filled all our Academy slots. Even given this, we can barely keep up with attrition. The solution to this is clear: we need a nationally negotiated number which we will not go below. If you were at the Convention, you heard Bill Peacock say that we would be talking about this after the pay and contract issues are settled. Given the push on A76, my guess is that the FAA Headquarters won�t be very anxious to begin talks on a "hard" number for Flight Service Staffing, but we will keep trying. At the Regional level, I do my best in conjunction with the RO to at least keep staffing at workable levels. The CPP factor has entered into this equation over the years, and has put bodies where we may have not ideally wanted them. We have even had washouts at the Academy -- guess it�s not as easy as the FAA would have the world believe. There are a number of ways to look at staffing and numbers, some of which are overly simplistic and impractical, others just the opposite. One thing we shouldn�t be doing is putting inflammatory statements about other Facilities� staffing numbers in this Newsletter. The only way we as a Union can get anywhere on any issue is if we are united. We will have our squabbles behind the scenes, but keep them behind the scenes! Management reads this publication, and this Newsletter is not the forum for our "dirty laundry." SCHEDULES By now, all Facilities are working on next year�s watch schedules -- the most contentious part of any FacRep�s job. I know there are always strong disagreements over both seniority and the basic watch schedule, but I would hope you do not just sit on the sidelines and bitch. Your FacRep is trying to do the best job he or she can, and they only know your opinion if you express it. When all the haggling is done, it will be your FacRep and Manager who come to the final decision on your Facilities� schedule, and at best it will be a compromise. Unfortunately schedules and vacation leave are tied to staffing, and with most Facilities running below staffing authorization (some well below), these are the two areas that will suffer the most. Try to be understanding of the situation, and if you have any constructive ideas -- give them to your FacRep! WORK RULES RATIFICATION If anyone has yet to receive their ballots, let your FacRep know immediately. I strongly advise that you thoroughly read the "TAUs" and Bill Dolan�s explanations. If you do not have Internet access, get the bound copy that your FacRep has and read it. You obviously can�t make an informed vote if you don�t have all the facts. That�s all I have for this month, I will leave the updates on Pay and A76 to Wally. If you have any questions, feel free to call me, or relay them through your FacRep.
HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS Scott Morrissy, HHR AFSS FacRep Arrivals and Departures Welcome to Hawthorne�s newest developmental, Alicia Davila, who arrived on Wednesday, Sept. 25th. She�s already hard at work studying her area knowledge and it won�t be long before she begins training on the floor. We�ll be saying "Farewell and Auf Wiedersein" to Bobbie Scoville in mid-October when she departs the fix outbound for her new supervisor�s job at Riverside. Best of luck! Wayne Welde has set a tentative retirement date of January 3rd. On the Training Front Kevin Bender is in the home stretch and should be checking out on Inflight soon. Which is a good thing, since we told his trainer, Bobbie Scoville she had to train her replacement before she could leave. David Graham is plugging away at Preflight. Frank Cortes certified on Preflight last week and is now working on Broadcast. Flight Watch 30th Anniversary We celebrated the 30th anniversary of Flight Watch with official guests and old friends. Dawna Vickers, Deputy Air Traffic Division Manager was on hand with Time Off Awards for all Flight Watch qualified controllers and former HHR ATM, Fred Kelly took time out from a busy retirement to come down from Reno to join in the festivities. Fred also has the distinction of taking the very first Flight Watch contact back in August of 1972. Special thanks go to everyone at our adjacent facilities that picked up a share of our calls so everyone at HHR could participate in the festivities. Cru-X Cru-X/LDR have been implemented -- sort of. They currently only impact the administrative side. We�re still signing in the old fashioned way. Management Objective? Courtesy of John "JR" Rezler. Several cannibals were recently hired by a big corporation. "You are all part of our team now," said the HR rep during the welcoming briefing. "You get all the usual benefits and you can go to the cafeteria for something to eat, but please don�t eat any of the other employees." The cannibals promised. Four weeks later their boss remarked, "You�re all working very hard, and I�m satisfied with you. However, one of our secretaries has disappeared. Do any of you know what happened to her?" The cannibals all shook their heads no. After the boss had left, the leader of the cannibals said to the others, "Which one of you idiots ate the secretary?" A hand rose hesitantly, to which the leader of the cannibals continued, "You fool! For four weeks we�ve been eating Managers and no one noticed anything, but noooooo, you had to go and eat the secretary!"
Th-th-th-that�s all folks! |
