|
Wally Pike, NAATS President PAY I have recommended, and the BOD has approved, a tentative pay agreement we reached yesterday on pay with the FAA. There are some technical cleanup details still to be worked out but we expect this to be done by the first of the month. Final agreement is subject to membership ratification. We have been in negotiations on pay since January 2000. We�ve been at impasse since April 2000. During this time we�ve attempted to negotiate an FSS reclassification and, when that failed, comparability with the other FAA controllers. The FAA response has consistently been the same -- move into core with no true increase in compensation or benefits. Even when they were offering "5.5%" it was always contingent on dollar for dollar cost offsets that would have resulted in no net increase; the most recent proposal was last year at the FMCS hearing when they proposed to take all the bargaining unit holiday premium pay. In agreeing to this proposal we considered all the factors, including the current environment in Congress and the FAA and the state of the national economy. We have also thoroughly examined the judicial option as well as administrative remedies through the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). It�s important that all members understand all the factors that contributed to this decision. It�s no secret that no one on either side of the aisle in Congress wants to hear about a pay dispute between the FAA and its unions. We�ve attempted to legislate a remedy on pay for the past three years with little to show for our effort. The climate on the Hill is worse now than when we started. The FAA has presented this same basic pay proposal to all of the unions, including the NATCA and PASS multi-units. Both of those unions are now at impasse and the Administrator has clearly stated that she has an aggressive schedule in sending these impasses to Congress for resolution. There is no reason to believe that Congress will act within the 60 day timeframe to reverse the Administrator�s position on pay. Staying in the GS-12 pay scale is therefore not an option. We will either move into core or we will be moved into core. There is no other outcome. Unfortunately this isn�t like negotiating a price on a car or a washing machine. It�s not a level playing field and we can�t change the rules of the game. No doubt you will hear talk about filing a lawsuit and taking the FAA to court. Essentially this line of logic goes that Congress did not intend for the Title 49 language to replace the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) as the final arbiter of FAA pay disputes. We have examined this judicial option on at least three different occasions; most recently last month. We do not believe we can prevail in court but, even if we could, the makeup of the FSIP does not give us much cause for optimism. Obviously the FSIP is a better venue than congress but, as you may recall, President Bush replaced all the members and their rulings (available online at www.FLRA.gov) with few exceptions have uniformly gone management�s way. We have filed unfair labor practices (ULPs) with the FLRA, the entity that administers the rules and regulations. These have not resulted in changing anything. When we talk with Congress about the pay dispute the national economy in general and the aviation industry specifically is routinely mentioned. Horror stories about airline pilots who used to make $150K or more a year now making $25K tossing luggage onto conveyor belts are an example. We have simply exhausted our options. Details about the tentative agreement are as follows:
That is the deal. The work rules have already been ratified. The above will be incorporated into the pay rules we negotiated in July 2002 and copies will be sent to all facilities and the NAATS website. Ballots will be sent to all regular members. Ballots will be due back November 14. The ratification timeframe will allow all members the opportunity to discuss and consider this thoroughly before they vote. It will also give the Regional Directors and me time to travel and meet with the membership. Service Contract Applies In discussions with OMB, they have stated that the Service Contract Act applies to the A-76 process. Having a collective bargaining agreement, including pay, in place could have a potential positive impact on bargaining unit members in the event we are actually contracted out. A word on what happens if this proposal is rejected: The FAA has stated they will send their May offer to the Hill. As you will recall, the May offer does not contain a re-opener for the union, no lump sum payment and no early implementation of training time. The choice is either to take the money, re-opener and training time or to force the Administrator�s hand on an inferior proposal. If you choose to vote "no" we will do the best we can under the circumstances to address this issue any way we can. Obviously we feel this is the best deal we can get or we wouldn�t be sending it out to you. There is no doubt you deserve better but we also know the realities of our situation. We recommend you ratify this agreement and that we move forward. On the Congressional Front Latest information is that H.R.2115 will probably be worked in the House first when Congress reconvenes after Labor Day. I met with PASS President Mike Fanfalone this week and we agreed to coordinate our grassroots congressional efforts. Specifically we have identified the H.R.2115 conferees as particularly important if the bill gets sent back to conference. Again, the conferees are Chairman Don Young (R-AK); John Mica (R-FL); Vern Ehlers (R-MI); Robin Hayes (R-NC); Denny Rehberg (R-MT); Johnny Isakson (R-GA); James Oberstar (D-MN); Peter DeFazio (D-OR); Leonard Boswell (D-IA); and Tim Holden (D-PA) from the House. The Senate conferees are Chairman John McCain (R-AZ); Ted Stevens (R-AK); Conrad Burns (R-MT); Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS.); Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX); Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC); Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HA); Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV); and Sen. John Breaux (D-LA). The Senators who voted for the June 12 Lautenberg amendment are also extremely important. The eleven Republicans were Bond (MO) DeWine (OH) Inhofe (OK) Voinovich (OH) Domenici (NM) Murkowski (AK) Specter (PA) Chafee (RI) Gregg (NH) Talent (MO) Fitzgerald (IL); all Democrats either voted in favor or would have voted in favor if present with the exception of Miller (GA) who voted "no." This fight is far from over. During the August recess we will continue to work this issue from here but it is extremely important that you also contact your Congressional representatives and describe the bill�s deficiencies. The idea is to revise the bill or defeat it. Some talking points are listed below:
No doubt you will come up with additional examples that can be used. Don�t confuse your message by discussing other concerns (pay or staffing). Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. In the meanwhile, here, we are talking with both the Republican and Democratic staffs to try to work a compromise. The House Appropriations Committee has approved HR 2989 which includes the FAA 04 appropriations. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General Government had yet to produce its version. The House is slated to take up HR 2989 when it returns from the August 2003 recess. ISP Visit I went to ISP the week of August 8th and met with Acting EA Regional Coordinator and ISP FacRep Deb Shea, and the members. Unfortunately Acting EA Regional Director Ron Consalvo was sick and unable to attend. The food and hospitality was great and the discussions even better. My thanks for the invitation.
By Tom Richards The Flight Service specialists are the pilots� friends, said Darrell Mounts. And general aviation pilots seem to agree. Mounts is the director of the northwest mountain region of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists. That is the union that represents the 2,500 Flight Service briefers and specialists at some 61 general aviation airports around the country. Those briefers and specialists provide pilot weather briefings, search and rescue of overdue planes, emergency services, and flight advisory services. Mounts said that the controllers are trained to interpret weather information from various sources. "We try to give a picture to pilots of whether they can get into the plane and fly," he said. If a plane is overdue for more than 30 minutes, they begin the process to search for the missing aircraft. It is usually just a case of a flight plan not being closed, but there are times when it is the first indication that a mishap has occurred. Emergency assistance might include help for a pilot who has become disoriented and lost, not an uncommon occurrence with student pilots. They also issue notices of weather conditions to pilots in the air. Prior to hire they must have at least three years of experience, in the military, for instance, or a degree. Then they train in Oklahoma City for two months, followed by about a year of on-the-job training. Mounts said that NAATS has identified 1,800 different job functions performed by the workers it represents. Those workers have a substantial presence at EAA AirVenture 2004, with the main operation in a corner of the FAA building and remote locations in both the North 40 and the South 40. In the waning days of the convention, a steady stream of pilots was filing flight plans and checking weather conditions. NAATS, the union that represents the 2,500 members, also maintains a booth in the Fly Market, dubbed "the oasis." That site offers free ice water and a pleasant place to sit. The union also is soliciting letters urging congressmen and congresswomen to reject a plan to privatize its operation at 10 of the remaining 61 airports with flight service controllers. Pilots from the North 40 campground lean in to hear a weather briefing from the crack Flight Service Station specialists working from one of two new mobile FAA facilities positioned at opposite ends of the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh grounds. Photo by Dave Higdon Mark Jaffe, ASW Regional Director The PWS Team met, in Alexandria, VA, the week of July 28. Attendees included Jerry Van Vacter, Oscar Hinojosa, Ug Garcia, Bill Morriarity, Jim Sizemore, Steve Hopkins, the Grant Thornton staff, and myself. Oscar has replaced Tim DeGrazio. For the NAATS folks, Jerry, Oscar, and I, Monday and Friday were travel days and Tuesday-Thursday were scheduled work days. Ug and Bill traveled early Monday and worked half a day on Monday without the NAATS team. Our objectives for this meeting was to finish the Activity Dictionary and begin scoring the activities contained in the dictionary. On Tuesday, we reviewed the work performed on Monday and began work on the dictionary. We finished the dictionary by mid-day on Wednesday. Before beginning work on scoring the activities, I asked the FAA reps, Jim and Steve, to confirm a previous agreement, from the June 24th meeting, about the details of scoring accessibility by the PWS Core Team. That request resulted in a major disagreement. Let me give everyone a quick rundown on scoring the activities and the reason for scoring the activities. AT-1 will look at the activities that have been identified in the dictionary and decide if any will fall under the category of CGA, Continuing Government Activity. The way that I understand it, if any activity is a CGA it will have to be performed by a government employee. This makes the scoring process and the recommendation, from PWS Team, about what should be a CGA critical to NAATS. The scoring process starts with the PWS Core Team members assigning a score to each activity in the dictionary. As it turned out, there are about 240 activities and each AT Core Team member scored each activity using a criteria developed by the FAA and Grant Thornton. The next step is for the FAA PWS Management team to take these numerical scores, combine them, in some fashion, with the user survey (see AOPA website), add in the opinion of the FAA PWS Management team about what should be CGA and give this report, without any numerical scores, to Joann Kansier. Ms. Kansier will then review the recommendation of the PWS Management Team, make any changes that she thinks are necessary, and send this report to AT-1. AT-1 will use this report from Ms. Kansier to decide which of the many jobs that we do in Flight Service will continue to be performed by government employees. All the activities that are NOT designated as CGA will be subject to contracting out. From a NAATS standpoint, here are a few of the problems with this process. To my knowledge, no one on the PWS Management Team has ever worked in an AFSS, period. I am defining "worked" as being an FPL in an AFSS. Other than the PWS Core Team, no one in this process works for Air Traffic so after the initial numerical scoring, there will be NO input from any experienced Flight Service person. There is a possibility that the FAA could add a person with this Flight Service experience, but at the time of this writing, that has not happened. Once the scoring leaves the PWS Core Team, NAATS will have no idea if there are any changes, alterations, or deletions in the version of the report that finally reaches AT-1. So theoretically, the Core Team scores could be completely ignored and anything could be presented to AT-1. The report to AT-1 will eventually become public knowledge (via FOIA request) but by that time the contract will have been awarded. NAATS foresaw these problems, in the PWS meeting the week of June 23, and reached an agreement to be able to review the reports of the PWS Management Team and Ms. Kansier. At least, we thought we had reached an agreement. I brought up the agreement before we started scoring because I wanted to clarify everything before scoring. At that point, Jim Sizemore and Steve Hopkins stated that did not recall any agreement for the Core Team to see any of the scoring reports that would eventually be presented to AT-1. Regardless of the fact that the PWS Core Team all remembered the agreement, the FAA folks did not recall making this agreement. I will not go into detail about the insuring discussion but, as it turned out, we are locked out of seeing any of these reports. That�s management rights. NAATS made it VERY clear that the only obvious reason for leaving the Core Team out of the loop was that management planned to ignore the Core Team scoring and alter the final report to AT-1. The Core Team proceeded with the scoring process with the hope that our opinions will not be ignored. As many of you remember, the FAA has stated that after the activity dictionary was finished, more data collection would be necessary before a PWS statement could be written. This commitment to more data collection was introduced in the initial briefings at the regions last year. This commitment to more data collections has been identified as an integral part of the PWS process in every handout and schedule produced by the FAA. Now the rules and requirements may have changed. Thursday afternoon, we discussed the need to go back out in the field and do more data gathering before beginning to write the actual PWS statement. Mr. Sizemore stated that Ms. Kansier was not in favor of any more data collection and that the team would have to present her with a plan to substantiate the need or there would be no more data collection. The majority of the data that is needed to write the PWS statement is not available. If we do not go back to the facilities and do the workload study, the FAA will just fabricate any figures needed, as they write the PWS statement. There will be a plan presented to Ms. Kansier, by the middle of August, to outline the data collection effort. At this time, NAATS will have input into that plan. It has always been the expectation that the PWS Core Team would assist in writing the PWS statement. I think everyone on the team thought that this was our ultimate job and that all the dictionary preparation, scoring, data collection, etc. was just preliminary work required before the PWS statement could begin. We were informed, at this meeting, that Ms. Kansier intends for the PWS Management Team and Grant Thornton to write the PWS statement and that the Core Team's involvement would make the process too cumbersome. The only commitment, at this time, is for the Core Team to review (without input) the finished product. I have proposed some ideas that would give the Core Team input during the writing process and it remains to be seen whether these proposals will be accepted. The Core Team decided to keep the Activity Dictionary on close hold. This is intended to keep vendors from seeing this information. If the dictionary is released to the venders, it will released to the facilities. If all this seems confusing, welcome to my world. The FAA seems to change either the rules or the schedule almost weekly. If you have questions, call me and I'll try to answer them. There are some things that I won�t be able to discuss because of disclosure requirements. My office number is (817) 801-1355 and my cell number is (817) 999-1567 Kate Breen, A76 Representative -- [email protected] There hasn�t been a lot going on to update you on, Mark Jaffe did an article on what happened at the PWS meeting a couple of weeks ago. Wally and I met with Joann Kansier last week to give input to the RFI and discuss how the PWS team meeting was handled. I will be following up with a letter to Ms. Kansier on our comments to the RFI. ACA is still planning on pushing ahead with the public announcement in September and we should hear something on Continuing Government Activities (CGA�s) by the end of this month. The binders got shipped out last Friday, sorry I didn�t let you know sooner, but I didn�t know until after the fact. It seems the communication team has trouble communicating within the team! You have one binder right now and a second one should be sent in a couple of weeks or so. The next issue of "The Briefer" should be out in a week or two, maybe I�ll find out about that after the fact too! Web-site, also expected to be up and running in the next week or two, if I hear anything I�ll let you all know. A tape is due out from the ATCA symposium in June, it�s been delayed for editing purposes. I think it might be to take me out!!! In the binders are some "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs), there are some answers to some of the HR questions people are asking. There will be more to follow on the HR issues in a month or so, hang in there we just want to make sure the information is correct. Lastly, I would like to welcome Suzanne Hynes (CDC ATM) to the communications team, maybe we can get some more activity going on the communications end.
FedNews Online, August 13, 2003 Money budgeted for health care, attorneys with the Department of Veterans Affairs have stated, cannot be used to pay for work competitions between contractors and VA employees, according to a recent article in Federal Times Online. The Aug. 4 ruling, which declared that even currently ongoing competitions must cease, prevented 55,000 VA employees from having to compete for their jobs with the private sector over the next five years, states the report. A VA official said that the department is essentially suspending its competitive sourcing initiatives. All Veterans Health Administration job competitions were stopped by an April 28 order by the VA�s general counsel. VA officials asked for more legal review in hopes of continuing some job contests already under way at 58 VHA laundry facilities. Competitions affecting 1,500 employees of small retail stores at hospitals and 1,500 food workers who serve VA employees and outpatients may still be held with funds outside the medical care account, stated Federal Times. The American Federation of Government Employees recently accused the VA of continuing to hold cost comparisons of federal jobs with the private sector and threatened court action if the VA did not stop. "If the VA does not immediately cease, AFGE will be forced to take further legal action to stop any irreparable harm to our members and to hold those responsible accountable to the taxpayers," said AFGE National President Bobby Harnage in a letter to VA Secretary Anthony Principi. The VA it estimates it would save $1.3 billion by competing 55,000 workers in the next five years if Congress agrees to pull $75 million from the VHA budget to fund job competitions through 2004 at more than 1,000 hospitals and health care sites nationwide, according to the report. VA is preparing a third report to clarify costs and savings, but some members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee are calling for an independent audit of the books. Jeff Barnes, OASIS National Representative, [email protected] 08/01/03 -- I have held off writing an update for some time now as I have been waiting for several events to occur. It has been an eventful time in OASIS. Working under the A-76 cloud has been depressing and joyless, making us have to fight for every little scrap off the rotting carcass the FAA tells us we should be happy to have. OASIS Waterfall Revised At the Board meeting in July the Board put together a proposal to the FAA to revise the waterfall for OASIS for 2004. With the advances made in OASIS including the new software that is due to deploy with Conroe, TX (CXO) in December everyone agreed that OASIS could be used anywhere with the known limitations it has and still be superior to M1FC/WSI. It has been emphasized by everyone who has been involved with this at every step of the way that no one considers OASIS to be at an end state, and that has been a very clear part of every piece of paper around this. We don't want anyone to think that development should be halted for any reason. The Board proposal and one that was made by the -510s was brought to the OASIS Human Factors Team, which then used their process to identify the 12 sites to be deployed in 2004. The HFT concurred entirely with the Board's proposal (interestingly, the -510s� proposal agreed on 8 of the 12 sites) with the exception of one site. Ultimately the HFT decided to leave that site TBD for the moment so the Board could further consider it and to give everyone a chance to come to an agreement before we have to elevate it to the impasse process of the HFT. Here are the 12 sites for 2004 (they are numbered with their overall position in the waterfall):
The Board did a lot of work in making these selections, and the HFT did so also in coming to agree to these. These are not frivolous or off-the-cuff choices. The following is quoted from the OASIS HFT Decision memo we signed and sent forward Thursday. The OHFT met on July 29-30, 2003 to determine the OASIS waterfall sequence for the FY04 deployment (site #15 through #26). The OHFT has determined that OASIS is conditionally suitable for installation in the sites listed below with the planned capabilities (ISD003) of the OASIS software. There are known deficiencies in the OASIS software that still need to be addressed. The OHFT requires that all deficiencies be resolved. Traffic data, console installation, equitable national distribution, the NAATS Board of Directors proposal, and the Regional -510s proposal, etc were used to determine the revised waterfall. Consensus was reached on 11 of the 12 sites. The remaining site is still under review and will be provided in 1st quarter FY04. Apologies My apologies that this has come out at the 11th hour like this, especially to Terre Haute, IN (HUF), who had been scheduled for their site survey. But the circumstances surrounding this forced us into this timetable and the OASIS Program Office had to continue forward with scheduled activities until we could get the decision agreed upon. DCA was put first so that installation and training could be done during slower traffic so as to minimize the impact to them and the facilities around them, but we can�t know exactly what will happen there. So we will keep a close eye on it to do everything we can to mitigate any problems that happen while they transition. I hope to get the TBD site worked out soon. I�ll update you when a decision gets made. The HFT did not address the remainder of the waterfall at this meeting. I am working out some details and I hope to have the HFT complete the waterfall at our next meeting, which (due to budget) won�t be happening till the end of October. More Budget Cuts? Speaking of budget...we have gotten word that the FAA is considering cutting the OASIS budget for FY2005 in half, to 10 million dollars. This would be catastrophic, basically bringing the program to a grinding halt. The FAA might not even have the money to make the required service payment to Harris for the systems already deployed, much less deploy any others or finish up development, which is what had been scheduled for 2005. I have met with the Program Office and gotten the details around the proposed cut and the impact it is projected to have and I am preparing a paper for Wally and I to take with us when we go meet with Steve Brown (ATS-1) on this in a couple weeks. I hope we can stop this, but A-76 is killing all spending on Flight Service (I�ve been told that there has actually been direction from on high that there will be no new money spent in Flight Service until A-76 is done). The shortsightedness of the top levels of the FAA sickens and infuriates me even though it�s unsurprising to me now. AOPA Displeased I spoke with AOPA regarding the revision to the OASIS waterfall. This is something they�ve wanted for a long time, so they are pleased. I wouldn�t be surprised to see something come from them regarding it very soon. I followed that up by talking about the budget cut. Needless to say they were quite unhappy with that. I expect further contact with them on how to fight and overcome this. Regardless of our differences, this hurts their members as much as it hurts us. Consoles I have asked for an update on where we stand with the OASIS console equipment position surveys and plans to correct deficiencies from the FAA. I asked Jim Perkins to follow up on it in ATP since it seems to have dropped off the radar for the moment with everything else going on. We�re adding RNO to the list of facilities where the frequency selectors have to be moved due to visibility concerns. Communications I usually keep my attention focused entirely on OASIS stuff, so often I know no more than anyone in the field about what is going on with other issues (and sometimes quite a bit less). However, I do occasionally crawl out from behind my desk and my computer and take a look around. It is well known that management reads what we write. In fact, some of what we write to you is also intended as back-back-back channel communication to management who we know will be reading this stuff. I know that the vast majority of what management in the regions and field knows about OASIS is what they read right here. I am saying this because I see Wally and the Board working hard to do everything they can for us. They communicate everything they can, but they have to be mindful of how they are doing it. If you talk face-to-face with Wally he will be quite candid and more in depth than what you read in his updates. Unfortunately that�s the way it has to be, because management reads everything he writes, and there is no way to avoid that. Wally and the Board are in no way trying to confuse or mislead the members. They are communicating everything they can via a medium they know will be read by the opposition, which puts limits on what they can say there without damaging their efforts to get the best possible outcome for us out of all the garbage that�s being thrown our way. ARS Report Steve Pollok, ATP Liaison -- [email protected] NOTAM Short Term Solution (NSTS) -- ACB-610 conducted Operational Capability Testing (OCT) on the Alert messages of the NSTS. This mainly deals with the NSTS sending a non-acknowledgement message to the sending AFSS when a Tower/Approach does not acknowledge the receipt of a NOTAM within a set time frame. Neither Jim, nor I, was present for this test. I have not received a briefing on the results but it appears that ATP may have some concerns with the results of the test. Also, there have been several meetings, and attempted meetings, concerning the Proof Of Concept (POC) testing of the NSTS. NAATS and ATP are requesting that we go to both Macon and Cedar City to perform a comparison test between M1FC and NSTS. This is to make sure that NSTS is providing the same, or more, amount of NOTAM information as M1FC. However, travel funds are proving to be the sticking point with doing the comparison. Once we are assured that all of the NOTAMs are being received by the NSTS, we can proceed to POC testing. Travel funds permitting. NSTS training at both facilities are nearing completion. As of July 17, Macon was about 70% complete with their training, and Cedar City had one individual left to train. Integrated Information Display System (IIDS) -- An IIDS presentation was conducted on July 14 by Dr. Tanya Yuditsky and Dr. Ferne Friedman-Berg of the Human Factors Lab from the Tech Center. They presented the results of a survey they had conducted at several AFSSs with IDS systems. They covered the conclusions and how this was incorporated into the development of the IIDS. Jim Perkins and I were present and answered several questions by the managers in attendance. All in all, it was an excellent presentation and corrected many of the misconceptions that the attendees had. This does not mean, however, that we are going to get what we presented. ATP has to write mission need statements to justify all of the items that we included in the proto-type. Some of the products, that we would like to see included, may be dropped due to costs, integration problems, etc. There is also the possibility that the system may be moved to another IDS platform such as FAADDS. OASIS/DUATS Integration -- A briefing was held on July 28 for Jim Washington, ARS-1. This was a review of the briefing material that will be presented to ATS-1 in the near future. Jeff Barnes and I attended the briefing for NAATS. Some deficiencies and errors were identified and corrected. Jim Washington asked for some cost analysis to be provided for the interactive capability portion. Jeff, and I, will be working with Cindy Moran, ARU-300, to provide an analysis, even though there isn�t enough time to provide a true cost-benefit analysis. It is the interactive portion that is one of the main cost producers, accounting for nearly one-third of the development costs. Harris Corp. provided cost projections for a phased approach to the interactive piece, but it only slightly lowered the development costs. Tape Retention -- No new information on the status of the NTSB request. Aeronautical Information System Replacement (AISR) -- This program was just recently turned over to me. It involves the replacement of the AIS that we use for back-up to the M1FC. The current system was developed by DynCorp and for which the contract expired at the end of Sept. 2002. The contract was extended for one year, to Sept. 2003, so that a replacement system could be found/developed. A contract was awarded to EDS which had a system already developed and in use by the military. Their system was virtually identical to DynCorp and would not require a great deal of time and training. The only problem with the system was that it was not designed to handle the Electronic NOTAM Log (ENL)/NOTAMS 2000, or to interface with the existing IDS-4 systems in use in the Central Region. The ENL/NOTAMS 2000 problem has been fixed, but the IDS-4 interface remains a problem. FAA is planning to have all existing AISs replaced by Sept 30th with the AISR. NAATS is fighting to get the interface with IDS-4 systems included, but there was no system requirement for this "regional" program. As usual we run into the big problems: TIME and MONEY. NAATS does not want to accept a system that will require any of our facilities to take a step backward by having to return to manual procedures for passing information that had been automatically forwarded. The union has not signed an MOU for the system. No doubt there will be much more to this story over the next two months.
International Flight Plans -- There is a proposal to
start numbering international flight plans and to receive acknowledgement
messages. It does not appear that NAATS would have a problem with this
proposal as long as the message numbering and acknowledgements are fully
automatic. We would not support any manual process such as maintaining any
type of manual log, manual numbering, etc. ARU Report Art Finnegan, ARU Liaison -- [email protected] Graphical Area Forecast (GFA) GAMET is an international term for the text of a forecast. A GAMET is computer generated from the Graphical Area Forecast. A GAMET has two sections. Section I contains "hazardous weather" previously contained in AIRMETs. (AIRMETs will be discontinued) Section II contains "additional information" or what is now in the Area Forecast (FA). The following is an example of a Boston Center FIR boundary GAMET. The use of either FIR Boundaries or Geographical Boundaries in a GFA is yet to be determined. Submit any comments or suggestions regarding the GFA to [email protected].
KZBW GAMET VALID 101800/110000 KKCI The operational support division (AOS) has verified that blackouts have affected the STL ITWS alerts. Therefore the scheduled operational readiness demonstration (ORD) at the site will be delayed. The blackout problem is just one in a series of problems that have been reported in recent months. ITWS is experiencing renewed interest recently in spite of the numerous problems. That is mainly due to an IG report earlier this year that extolled its many benefits. The Terminal Business Unit (ATB) is since considering purchasing 7-9 new ITWS systems. In true capitalistic style, the contractor stated that if the FAA were to buy all 9 systems they would receive a discount. ATB plans to re-baseline the ITWS. Re-baseline, simply means start over or redefine the program. In this case a re-baseline would be for the purpose of including the Convective Weather Forecast Product (CWFP) in the system. The CWFP will provide the ability to forecast the position of hazards for up to twenty minutes with a high degree of accuracy. NAATS will be working with the new Air Traffic Requirements lead assigned to the ITWS re-baseline effort to identify Flight Service needs and share information about display systems planned for Flight Service Stations. Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)
The WARP system has been experiencing some minor technical
problems of its own. The WARPs� NEXRAD analogous propagation (AP) editing
capability has been performing at about 2/3 of its missed detection
requirement. False alarms were caused when it edited out approximately 4%
valid weather. The contractor is working on a new Radar Detection Algorithm
(RDA) that should help reduce these incidences. NAATS Representatives and WARP team members Janice Collier and Steve Wagner from the ATCSCC both contributed to the success of the WARP program. Stand Alone Weather System (SAWS) A SAWS display evaluation at GNV AFSS is still pending approval of a questionnaire to be used in that effort. An alleged withholding of information from the Unions about the evaluation plan seems to have stalled much of the progress on the project. Juneau Airport Wind System (JAWS) The dubious placement of an anemometer east of JNU, due of its� wetlands designation, affected the search for a more suitable location. The wind sensor will now be placed near the intersection of Vanderbilt Road and Egan Drive in Juneau. An independent assessment of the overall JAWS scheme was initiated in June. A report from independent researchers is expected by the end of September. While the JAWS team awaited the results of the assessment they went to work on the planning and installation of an LLWAS at JNU. The LLWAS will be a component of the JAWS. Work on the LLWAS proceeded in spite of concerns regarding the necessity and/or propriety of a LLWAS at the location expressed by Alaska Airlines, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and the Operational Support Division (AOS). Although very little if any convective activity occurs at JNU, the elevation of the anemometer west of the field, higher than the runway, was the primary reason for their misgivings. The Engineering and Test Division (ACB) was then asked to begin development of a procedure to certify the LLWAS. ACB however, declined to lend credibility to the LLWAS effort citing the other groups� concerns over the question of proper citing of the anemometer on the hill. Further work and planning on the JAWS will now await the results of two independent studies, one for the overall plan, and one for the LLWAS. Meanwhile, members of the JAWS team will make their way to Juneau during July and August for their personal assessments of the situation. See you in September. ATX Report Beth Gerrits, ATX Liaison -- [email protected] Familiarization Flight Program -- The Familiarization Flight Program remains at the TSA with no change in the status of approval. NSTS -- The MOUs for NOTAMs Short Term Solution (NSTS), NOTAMs Multi-domain, and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) were completed and signed. These will be appearing in a Read and Initial binder near you within the next 30 days. FAA Academy & Budget Issues -- Negotiations for the assignment of newly hired personnel for the AFSS option for Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04) will begin soon. We currently are restricted in the hiring of new personnel by the capacity at the FAA Academy. The Academy is able to train 98 new hires in FY04. FY04 begins October 1 and the hiring freeze ends at that time as well. The FAA�s budget woes are far from over and let us hope that another freeze does not occur next year and further reduce our numbers. Other classes at the Academy like EFAS should also resume after October 1. There is no word yet on if waivers will still be required for moves, promotions, or travel after October 1. Since the procedure is in place it may continue. Once created procedures do not go away very quickly. That�s all for now. I hope you enjoy your vacation as much as I plan to enjoy mine. FSOSC Report Tim DeGrazio, Kevin Carl and Jim Mehan, FSOSC Liaisons Well, this is the first report from the new guys, Jim Meehan and Kevin Carl. So here goes. The FSOSC is moving along well. So far there have been a few bumps in the road. We have been experiencing some difficulties with connections to the internet. A resolution to the internet proxy server problem was sent out to the regional offices for distribution to the Flight Service Stations. Apparently some of the regional offices did not forward the information. Therefore we received many phone calls regarding this issue. We have also had several questions regarding our schedule. At this time the FSOSC is staffed from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. Monday thru Friday. Without more staffing, we are unable to staff FSOSC on weekends. However national emergencies will be attended to promptly. Remember this is new and takes a little bit of time to iron out all of the quirks. Bear with us we can make this work. TFR NOTAM Errors We are finding some of the TFR NOTAMs that are issued, when plotted are in error. Another words the Fixed Radial Distance (FRD) and the LAT/LONG coordinates don�t always match up. The majority of those in error are issued by the centers. We will continue to pursue this issue and try to resolve the problems. We have found that the presidential, and air show type NOTAMs which are generated here at FAA HQ are very accurate. This has come about as a result of FSOSC being able to check the accuracy, and sign off on these NOTAMs prior to issuance. Center TFR NOTAMs are issued prior to us being able to check them for accuracy. We plot both of the points FRD and LAT/LONG. Therefore some of the TFR graphics show up looking like racetracks or pills. Well that�s all for now. FTI Report Linda Sterling, FTI Representative -- [email protected] FTI (Federal Telecommunications Infrastructure) is moving along well we are preparing for Phase II site surveys which will start to include the AFSSs. I am looking for individuals that would be interested in being Point of Contacts (POCs) for me. If you are interested in being the POC for your facility, please contact your Regional Director and give him/her your name and e-mail address and phone number. I will contact you shortly and give you a background on the project and what will be your role. Please respond to your directors by Close of Business August 19, 2003. I realize this is a short deadline but we are finally getting into the AFSSs phase.
Press Release, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg Washington, D.C. -- During a press conference today, United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg slammed President Bush for his attempts to place air travelers at further risk by trying to privatize the nation's Air Traffic Controller system. Lautenberg pledged a forceful assault to reverse the outcome of the FAA Reauthorization Conference Report that removed his language, which would have protected air traffic controllers from privatization. "On September 11th our nation's professional and dedicated air traffic controllers performed heroically, as they guided thousands of aircraft out of the sky in a few hours without a single incident. But now, less than two years after their heroic feat, President Bush is looking to fire them," said Lautenberg. "The President wants to turn their jobs over to the private sector. That plan won't fly with the public." In mid-June, the Senate passed Lautenberg�s amendment to the FAA Reauthorization bill to block any attempt to privatize the air traffic control system by a vote of 56-41 with 11 Republicans supporting the amendment. The House included similar language in its FAA bill. But in conference, the Bush Administration threatened to veto the bill if it impacted their privatization plan. Republicans on the conference agreed to gut the air traffic control provisions and allow the Bush privatization plan to move forward. No Democrat signed this conference report. It is now pending for action in both houses of Congress. "This week we heard that the Administration wanted to cut back on the number of Air Marshals on planes, and here they are trying to farm out the entire federal air traffic control system to the lowest bidder. There are some things we can do to save money, but security on the cheap is not what the American people want," Lautenberg said. Lautenberg told reporters that he is putting the President on notice that the nation's security is not for sale, and he -- along with many of his colleagues -- will do all they can to stop this dangerous plan from taking effect. "After 9-11, the public wanted security in the skies to be a top priority. The public said no to cutting air marshals and will say no to privatizing our air traffic control system," noted Lautenberg. A fact sheet is attached to this release.
Senate version Yes, and exempts smaller airports in the "Contract Tower Program." Also prevents privatization of certification and maintenance technicians and flight service station controllers. (Floor vote: 56-41, including eleven Republicans). House version Yes, and exempts smaller airports in the "Contract Tower Program." Conference Report/White House language No. Eliminates air traffic controller protection after 4 years, and explicitly expands privatization to 71 FAA towers (except in Alaska). Permits immediate privatization of Federal certification and maintenance technicians and flight service station controllers. Other countries have tried privatizing air traffic control and the results have been disastrous:
Gregory McGann, RDU AFSS TRUE VALUE Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with. --Bob Wells We keep hearing that the A-76 competition is about the "best value." As I�ve said before, "best value" leaves a lot of wiggle room. It depends on so many factors including cost, performance, and the competence to recognize a value that the AFSS competition is almost certainly doomed from the start. Just to muddy the waters even further, let�s talk about the concept of "value" itself. What are we comparing ourselves to, if at all? The FAA says that it currently costs over $500 million per year to run the Flight Service option. That figure is fairly well padded -- if you take out regional costs and AF costs it�s more like $290 million per year, but for the sake of argument we�ll accept the FAA�s figure. What do we get for that money and how can we do it cheaper? I�ve written before about the dangers of government contracts, where the price is separated from the service. Any private company exists to earn a profit, and more profit can be generated by lowering costs if we assume that the quality will not change. Lowering the quality always reduces demand for the service, so a cost reduction that also reduces the quality saves nothing and ultimately leads to the company�s death spiral, where costs and quality take turns falling until the company goes out of business. However, a service provided by a government contract that is free to the users would have to get pretty bad before people will ante up the money for something better. Again, that leaves a lot of room for the contractor to cut costs and still keep making money on the contract. So how much would the average pilot have to pay to get the service elsewhere? That�s impossible to answer at this point, since there are no private Flight Service Stations, but let�s look at just one aspect of our job. Some of the best weather info is provided by WSI, an aviation weather service owned by The Weather Channel. WSI provides access to basically the same raw data that we have access to, but without a trained weather briefer to interpret the raw data. WSI Online International charges $150 per month for a basic subscription and $45 more for METARs, TAFs, SIGMETs, AIRMETs, etc. That�s $195 per month per pilot. In the U.S. there are currently 635,474 licensed pilots including private, commercial and air transport. If they all subscribed it would cost $123,917,430 per month, or almost $1.5 billion per year. If we take just the 258,749 private pilots it still comes to $50,456,055 per month, or $600 million and change per year, about 20% more than the FAA gets for all the flight service functions we provide, including AF and regional support. When deciding the real value of Flight Service, we should compare it to the price our customers are willing to pay for it in a free market, not the lowest level of service they will accept before fleeing to the free market. I have to go now -- I want to pick up a couple hundred shares of WSI.
By Roger Larsen, The Huron Plainsman, July 31, 2003 The fight�s far from over, but supporters of privatizing the air traffic control system won a battle when language preventing the government from outsourcing it to the highest bidder was dumped from a reauthorization bill. President Bush wants to open federal jobs to private sector competition. That makes no sense in this case, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said Tuesday. "We�re not going to give up," Daschle said. "You just can�t put a price on safety." Not only is safety a concern, but the loss of Huron's flight service station would have a significant impact on the local economy. The Federal Aviation Administration station provides 25 jobs and a $1.8 million payroll. Last week, members of a House-Senate conference committee deleted provisions in versions of the FAA reauthorization bill - earlier passed by each chamber - that would have blocked the FAA from outsourcing air traffic controllers. The conferees also dropped Senate language that would prevent the agency from making the jobs of 2,700 flight service specialists at 58 stations competitive with the private sector. A filibuster of the conference report is possible. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and other angry Democrats are said to be considering legislative tactics to stop the measure, including a filibuster. "We were just flabbergasted because we thought we had a deal," Daschle said. In June, the Senate voted 56-41 to prohibit the government from transferring air traffic control to private companies. No private companies with the expertise to manage the nation�s air traffic exist, said Donavon Decker, a union member of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists and a Huron flight service station employee. "There are no companies that do the job that we do in the United States," he said. Daschle said that would mean foreign companies would be the ones bidding for the service. "Canada has tried it and it�s been almost a disaster in that country," he said. Air traffic controllers wouldn�t be subject to privatization until fiscal 2008, under language included in the bill by the conferees. Controllers are the ones that separate the planes at airports, while flight service specialists provide weather briefings to pilots and assist in search and rescue missions. Also, 71 low- and medium-activity towers can be privatized at FAA discretion. "The fight's not over yet," Decker said. "There�s still a couple things that could happen." Privatization hasn�t worked in any other country without pilots having to pay high fees, he said. The air traffic control system in place for so many years has served the nation�s pilots and air passengers well, Daschle said. Last year was the safest year in aviation history, he said. All three members of South Dakota�s congressional delegation have pledged to try to keep the air traffic control system an inherently government function. As pilots themselves, Daschle and Rep. Bill Janklow, R-S.D., said the flight service specialists at the Huron station - the only one in the state - provide an invaluable service that can�t be measured in dollars. Decker is asking pilots to contact the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association to urge it to do what it can to stop privatization. "We do have an uphill battle, but the more the pilots really find out about this the more they are very unhappy with what the government's trying to do," he said. By Reg Jones, FedWeek.com, July 16, 2003 Catch-62. Does that ring a bell? Well it should for some of you. Federal employees who also served in the military after December 31, 1955 can get retirement credit under both their civilian retirement system and Social Security. However, there�s a catch. It�s called Catch-62, because for CSRS employees the "catch" usually comes when they reach age 62. For FERS employees, the catch comes well before then. If you are a FERS employee, the catch is that you can only receive civil service credit for post-1956 military service if you deposit an amount equal to a percentage of the military basic pay you earned while on active duty. In general, that deposit is 3 percent, plus interest. You don�t have to pay it all at one time. Deposits can be as small $50. However, you must complete the deposit before you retire if you want to get any credit for your military service. If you are a CSRS employee, the deposit rules depend on when you were hired. If you were hired after September 30, 1982, you'll be treated in exactly the same way as a FERS employee. You will only get credit for your post-1956 military service if you make a deposit. However, CSRS employees must make a larger deposit - 7 percent, plus interest. On the other hand, if you were first employed under CSRS before October 1, 1982, it�s up to you whether to make a deposit. Either way, you�ll still get credit for your military service time. However, if you don�t make a deposit and are eligible for Social Security at age 62 (or later if you retire after age 62), those years of service will be eliminated and your annuity recomputed downward. If you don�t expect to become eligible for Social Security benefits either at age 62 or at retirement, you can stop reading this item now.
If you do expect to become eligible for Social Security benefits either at
age 62 or at retirement, it may be worth making a deposit. To find out what
you owe, go to your personnel office. If you have a DD-214 or its
equivalent, attach it to a copy of form RI 20-97, Estimated Earnings During
Military Service and mail it to your branch of service. (The addresses are
on the back of the form.) The service center will verify your earnings. Or,
if you have complete pay records, your personnel office can use those to
calculate your military deposit.
Reginald Jones is a noted expert on federal pay and benefits. And he should
be. When we retired he was in charge of the government's civil service
retirement systems, as well as its multi-billion dollar life and health
insurance programs.
NATCA Asks DOT Inspector General to Investigate NATCA Press Release WASHINGTON July 30, 2003/U.S. Newswire -- Funding for the Federal Contract Tower Program has increased by more than 49 percent over the last three years, dramatically outpacing the rate of growth of the Federal Aviation Administration�s operations budget. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has asked Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead to investigate this and other examples of uncontrolled costs and unfulfilled contractual obligations. According to Mead�s own past findings of the Contract Tower Program, towers were not staffed in accordance with contractual staffing agreements, payment for services which were not delivered, contractors were overpaid and the overall performance plan was inadequate. "The inspector general is fond of noting the growth in the FAA operations budget, which is 18 percent over the past three years. We think we have found one of the main causes," NATCA President John Carr said. "The growth in the cost of contract towers cannot be sustained and we urge Mr. Mead in the strongest possible terms to investigate the financial morass known as the Federal Contract Tower Program." Carr noted the urgency for an investigation, in light of a Congressional conference committee report on the FAA Reauthorization bill. If passed by the U.S. House and Senate, this bill would allow for the removal of FAA controllers from 69 air traffic control towers and replace them with contracted employees. Eleven of these towers rank among the 50 busiest in the country, according to the FAA administrators� latest figures. While the contract tower program�s funding level has increased 49.71 percent since 2000, the number of contract towers has increased by only five percent during the same time period. Additionally, the Contract Tower Association has stated that the annual cost for a contract tower is $271,000. However, data taken by NATCA from the CTA�s own information shows the actual average cost is more than $413,917 - nearly twice what the contractor previously represented. "The need for the facts on this matter is urgent, given the fact that the FAA reauthorization bill pending before Congress proposes to expand the Federal Contract Tower Program significantly," Carr said. "The record of the Contract Tower Program to date suggests that an expansion will be a boon for the contractors, but a disaster for taxpayers." Security-related flight restrictions over the Baltimore-Washington region have frustrated pilots while choking business at many small airports. By Paul Adams, Baltimore Sun, July 20, 2003 On a partly cloudy morning this month, the only thing moving on Haysfield Airport�s 2,400-foot grass runway is David Bassler�s riding lawn mower. Bassler, whose parents own the Clarksville airport and the bucolic 420-acre farm on which it sits, could spend all day mowing and not see more than one plane take off. Nearly two years after terrorists attacked the Pentagon, security-related flight restrictions over the Baltimore-Washington region have driven away about half of the 50 pilots who used to base their airplanes at the Howard County airfield. As have a growing number of the 9,000 general aviation pilots in Maryland, many have moved to airports outside the area or sold their planes out of frustration. "They�re flying a lot less because of all the hassles," Bassler said, gazing out at the 25 single-engine planes that are tied down next to the partially mowed runway. "Most people do it for the enjoyment, and it takes the enjoyment out of it if you can�t just fly at will." Pilots and airport managers throughout Maryland complain that the 5-month-old federal Air Defense Identification Zone that restricts flights in the region is threatening to smother dozens of the state's 143 small airports and the businesses that depend on them. Without some loosening of the rules inside the zone, many fear the general aviation community in Maryland and Washington will be decimated, cutting off a key source of economic development for some suburban and rural communities. "I think that we are going to lose some [airports]," said Bruce Mundie, whose job is to inspect and license general aviation airports for the Maryland Aviation Administration. "Particularly those people who have the little privately owned facilities - some of those are going to disappear." General aviation in Maryland has never fully recovered from the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, which temporarily shut down all airports and resulted in permanent restrictions around three airports that lie within 15 miles of the Washington Monument. Since the skies reopened for business, frequent flight restrictions have been vigorously enforced around military bases, nuclear power plants, Camp David and other Maryland sites deemed sensitive by federal security agencies. Pilots say the multiple flight restrictions are laid out in confusing maps and ominous-sounding "notices to airmen" issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. "You have to have a doctoral degree in map reading to get into the Washington area nowadays," said Mundie, who also is a veteran pilot.
Worse since Feb. 10 To fly inside the zone, pilots must file a flight plan with an FAA flight service station and get clearance from air traffic controllers at Potomac Consolidated Terminal Radar Approach Control, or TRACON. Failure to do so could result in an unfriendly visit from a military fighter jet and a possible fine. The prospect of punishment has scared many pilots away from the area, sending revenue plunging at airports stuck inside the zone. "There�s a section of people - maybe 25 to 30 percent - who are intimidated into not flying, and they�re not likely to come back until this goes away," said Boni Caldeira, a flight instructor at Montgomery County Airpark in Gaithersburg. Caldeira said his business is down sharply.
The way it was That point was driven home June 29 when the pilot of a Cessna 172 ran out of fuel and crashed in White Marsh after being told to circle outside the zone while controllers searched the system in vain for his flight plan. "All of us knew that at some point in time, somebody was going to have an accident like this," said Richard Glasser, an Alexandria, Va., pilot. Glasser had a similar experience recently while on a flight from Leesburg Airport in Virginia to a small airport in the Shenandoah Valley. As he attempted to re-enter the air defense zone after a day of flying, air traffic control said it had no record of his flight plan, which he had filed with the FAA station in Leesburg before his departure. As Glasser struggled to file a new plan by radio, a thunderstorm cell formed in his flight path, forcing him to seek shelter at an airport near Winchester, Va. Had he not been delayed by the missing flight plan, Glasser said, he could have beaten the storm and made it to Leesburg. "All of these incidents are occurring when people have done the right thing and all they want to do is get home," he said. Some pilots have sat on the ground for up to an hour waiting for air traffic control to give them clearance to take off inside the zone. Others have circled for 20 to 30 minutes while waiting for permission to enter the zone, running up airplane rental fees and fuel costs in the process. Filing a flight plan with the FAA can be equally frustrating. Pilots say they often get a busy signal when they try to call an FAA flight service station. And when they do get through, their flight plans sometimes get lost or timed out of the system. The plans stay in FAA computers for only two hours. "The problem is that when the system was created, they didn�t have, nor do they have today, the resources to handle all of the aircraft that are now being sucked into the system," said Warren Morningstar, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. With thousands more private planes to keep track of, air traffic controllers agree that they can't keep up with the demands for their attention. Some are critical of federal officials for creating the zone without having a system in place to handle it. "Our VFR traffic has somewhere between doubled and tripled from normal," said Jim Davis, president of the Potomac branch of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "That is a tremendous increase in workload for controllers. I don't believe anybody was really prepared for this."
Fewer controllers While acknowledging some delays, FAA officials say the system is improving as pilots and controllers get accustomed to the new rules. Right after the air defense zone was created, the FAA was investigating 50 to 60 "pilot deviations," or violations, in the zone on an average weekend. Two weekends ago there were only 13, said Rick Ducharme, FAA�s manager of air traffic control for the Eastern region. "This is a new procedure in the Washington area, and we don�t have this anyplace else in the country," he said. "We�re learning together - both controllers and pilots - and we�re seeing improvements." Some pilots agree, saying problems have decreased in recent weeks. "People have complained until they�ve done it, and then they realize it�s not a big deal," said Chris Wiggins, a flight instructor for Brett Aviation at Martin State Airport. Ducharme disputes complaints about lost flight plans. Of the more than 21,000 flight plans filed in the region from June 6 to July 5, the FAA received only two complaints about losses. Most likely, he said, the "lost" flight plans cited by pilots were automatically purged from the system because the two-hour time limit had expired. That�s little consolation to airport managers, who say the aviation community will continue to wither as long as the restrictions remain. "It�s killing the business inside the [Air Defense Identification Zone]," said Wendy Carter, manager of the Montgomery County Airpark. The airpark, which is home base for 250 small airplanes, is one of 23 public-use airports inside the restricted zone. Carter said she already has lost at least seven tenants, while others are simply not flying as much as they formerly did. "They�re being good tenants and they�re paying their bills, but they�re not flying," she said. The restrictions are most severe for pilots at College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield in Friendly and Washington Executive/Hyde Field in Clinton - all of which lie within a 15-mile restricted zone around Washington. Known as the "D.C. three," the airports are closed to all but the pilots who are based there. Those who remain had to undergo extensive background checks and fingerprinting before the airports were allowed to reopen after the September 2001 attacks. Lee Schiek, manager of College Park Airport, said activity at the airport has declined 96 percent since the attacks. All but 22 of the 90 planes that once called College Park home have left for airports farther from Washington. Schiek jokes that he is the "aviation equivalent of the Maytag repairman." "They [the pilots] would rather drive farther so they can fly freer," he said. Pilot and antique plane hobbyist Tom Long doesn�t have that luxury. The retired commercial pilot owns a private grass airport in Benedict, where he and a few tenants keep a handful of World War II Piper airplanes that have been painstakingly restored. All are grounded because they don�t have electrical systems or radios, making it impossible for the pilots to communicate with air traffic controllers or to broadcast a transponder code, which identifies the plane to air traffic controllers.
�Got to do something� The same dilemma faced two antique plane enthusiasts at Haysfield Airport. Bassler said two tenants recently dismantled their antique Piper planes and trucked them to another airport, where they can fly unrestricted. A few of the airport�s other tenants have their planes up for sale. The repeated defections have left the airport's maintenance chief, Dick Kreis, scratching for work. Kreis, who owns Skybird Aviation, said his business is down 60 percent. He�s thinking of retiring. "I�m dying. I can�t continue like this," he said. Bassler said the airport has few operating expenses, other than mowing the 25-acre runway and keeping the runway lights on at night. Opened in 1968 by his father, Alfred Bassler, the airport is flanked by a landscape nursery, which grows decorative trees on both sides of the runway. Eight Bassler families still live on the farm, which is increasingly surrounded by suburban development.
Trees might grow there "But if more planes leave and it gets down to whether it�s worth mowing the grass, we could lease [the land] to the nursery and they would love to have it." Developers also are itching to get their hands on the property, Bassler said. Such talk has aviation enthusiasts worried.
"It all has a significant impact and keeps people from being
able to use their aircraft," said Morningstar, the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association spokesman. "It�s affecting people�s business and their
livelihoods." Brought to you by FedWeek.com Flawed A-76 Competition Led to Erroneous Contract Awarding, Lawmaker Says Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has called on the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to opt out of its contract with Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) to help privatized workers regain their civil service status. In March, the Department of Defense Inspector General determined that, "a $31.8 million error by a DFAS consultant in the public-private competition resulted in the award of a contract with a potential value of $346 million to the contractor rather than the lower in-house bid." To date, DFAS has not denied these claims. "Now, it is time to rectify that error by reversing the results of that public-private competition and bringing back in-house the work which was wrongly privatized," Kucinich and other Ohio representatives wrote in a letter to DFAS Director Thomas Bloom. DFAS possesses the authority, upon expiration of the option, to opt out of its contract with ACS and bring the work back in-house with the waiver authority established under the A-76 process. The contract�s annual option expires again in January 2004. Kucinich wants DFAS to facilitate an organized transition of the work back in-house. White House Drops Contracting Goals The White House has backed off its goal to have half of all commercial-type federal jobs considered for possible conversion by contractors, a policy the administration had touted as a cornerstone of improved management practices but which quickly became a lightning rod for criticism from employee groups and some in Congress. The goal had its origins in the 2000 presidential campaign, and while no timetable ever was set--beyond competing 15 percent of such jobs by the end of this fiscal year -- critics of contracting practices denounced the initiative as creating a goal that agencies would have to follow regardless of whether it was good management practice. Agencies were evaluated for purposes of the administration�s management "scorecard" on how many jobs they were considering. Legislative proposals to bar the use of numeric goals led to several battles between the White House and Congress. The administration says it will now let individual agencies set their own targets and will judge them on how well they are meeting those goals and how quickly they get the comparisons done. Ability to Meet Contracting Goals Questioned The administration announcement also followed release of a General Accounting Office report questioning whether the Defense Department -- which has by far the most positions eligible for conversion -- would be able to achieve the goal of considering half of such jobs for possible conversion. GAO said that while DoD met the administration goal of considering 15 percent of such jobs by the end of this fiscal year, to achieve the 50 percent goal DoD would have to consider nearly twice the number of positions it has previously studied during a comparable time period, and "providing sufficient resources (financial and technical) to complete the studies may prove challenging." One funding issue, it said, arises because the military departments plan to fund from the same accounts that pay for those studies the replacement civilian or contractor personnel for military personnel they expect to move into positions more closely associated with warfighting. Hill Considers Limits on Contracting Meanwhile, Congress is continuing to seek restrictions on contracting-out policy as part of the annual spending bills for the upcoming fiscal year, setting up potential fights with the White House when those bills come up for final voting. The House Appropriations Committee has approved language as part of the Transportation-Treasury spending measure requiring agencies to report on how much they spend on consultants to operate cost comparisons between in-house and possible contractor performance; because many agencies lack the expertise to conduct those studies themselves, many have turned to contractors to see if work should be performed by other contractors, an arrangement that federal employee organizations say stacks the deck against in-house employees. The language also would require reporting on the scope and cost of competitive sourcing programs, including how much they are spending on using in-house employees to conduct the studies. Agency-Specific Limits Also in Play
The House has passed bills that would restrict
contracting-out at the Interior Department and Forest Administration Opposes Restrictions The Bush administration has said it "strongly opposes" attempts to restrict the contracting-out program, to the extent of threatening to veto bills containing such provisions. For example, in comments on the Interior Department bill, the administration said: "Now is the wrong time to short-circuit implementation of the common-sense principle of competition -- a proven way of protecting taxpayers� dollars while providing better service and performance enhancements, especially since numerous agencies are starting to make real progress. Prohibiting funding for public-private competitions is akin to mandating a monopoly regardless of the impact on services to citizens and the added cost to taxpayers. If the final version of the bill were to contain such a provision, the President�s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." TSP Open Seasons Could Be Abolished Among the topics under consideration by the TSP�s governing board is the concept of abolishing the twice-yearly open seasons the TSP conducts. During open seasons, eligible employees not currently participating may join the program, and all investors may change the amount of their regular biweekly payroll withholding. However, many other transactions -- such as changing the allocations of ongoing investments or current account balances, or making "catch-up" contributions -- need not be done during an open season. Further, the government contributions for newly hired employees under the FERS system are linked to open seasons, meaning a delay in those contributions of potentially upwards of a year. The TSP board believes that abolishing open seasons would simplify the program and improve participation, but such a change would require legislation. ALASKA REGION
CENTRAL REGION Michael Terry, Director and Jerry Van Vacter, Coordinator Travels with Wally On July 8th-10th, Jerry, Wally and I had the opportunity to visit FOD, ICT & OLU. We were pretty tired after all the driving we did, but it was worth it to have Wally meet with the members. We would like to thank all that took the time to come out and visit with us. While we were having the meeting at Wichita, Tornado sirens were going off, but Wally kept right on with the meeting like nothing was going on. There were some perfect CBMAMs just prior and after the Tornado sirens going off. We would like to thank Carl for arranging the opportunity for us to sample the fine dining of Columbus, NE. If you are ever in Columbus, you have to eat at Dusters, you won�t be sorry. Thanks to Jerry and Kelly for giving up their house for the BBQ and meeting. Meetings The following week we had the Board of Director meeting in Minneapolis. We are still deep in the A-76 process and the Board is trying to cover as many contingencies as possible. We have a pre-quarterly and a LMR meeting August 13th and the Regional quarterly will be held the 27th and 28th. If you have any issues that need to be discussed let your FacRep know so we can get it on the agenda. Retirement Plans For those that don�t know, I plan on retiring on the 2nd of January. According to the constitution, Jerry will be filling in for the rest of my term. He will be looking for someone to take over the RegCo. There are 4 people already that have said they would step up and do it. EASTERN REGION LEESBURG AFSS NEWS
Greeting from Leesburg, where banging your head against a wall is a daily occurrence. Major Construction The Airport is still undergoing a major construction project to add on to the terminal building. Construction equipment, supplies and workers are everywhere. I can certainly understand how the town of Leesburg can�t afford to fix the HVAC system in our building without the FAA paying for it...after 3 years. Management Management-wise, there�s nothing new to report. Our manager is out, long term, our acting manager is out, long term, and so we have an acting acting manager. Staffing, sure could use some. Maybe then we would not lose several hundred a day. We lose more calls on a VFR day than some facilities in our region take. ADIZ Here is the skinny. If a VFR wants to land at an ADIZ airport file a flight plan as IFR and altitude as "VFR/022" or whatever the requested altitude is. In the Remarks put VFR ADIZ AFSS. That is all there is to it! If it is an IFR plan just file it normally. Thanks for all the help we receive. GREAT LAKES REGION
NEW ENGLAND REGION
NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION DENVER AFSS NEWS John Dibble, FacRep Greetings from the Mile High City! Home again after Oshkosh. We braved the annual thunderstorms and rain showers -- and I mean RAIN showers! Seems like we saw more rain in Oshkosh than I see in a year in Denver! Once
again, a lot of pilots and wanna-bes braved the elements to camp out on the
rain-soaked grass, eat all kinds of food -- not on anyone�s diet, and browse
through a myriad of stalls hawking a myriad of products. Privatization vs. Contracting Out Once again, the FAA plays its word games. While they swear up and down that they do not intend to "privatize" ATC, the end result of "contracting out" is the same -- a private company will provide the services for profit. Mineta and Blakey were both at AirVenture trying to assure the pilots that the FAA does not intend to "Privatize" the system. However what they didn�t say is the FAA does intend to give the operations over to a private company. Remember if a pilot asks if the FAA really intends to privatize Flight Service, the answer really is "no," but the result will be the same as if they had. If you have any questions, ask. Also, as to Blakey�s claim that each call to a Flight Service Controller costs $27, while grossly inflated, is still low for the value of a life. FAA�s quotes range from $15 to the new high of $27. Of course she deliberately ignores all the services provided by Flight Service Controllers that are not counted. Search and Rescue, Emergency Assistance, NOTAMs, QA of NWS products, QA of AWOS/ASOS products, etc. A Message For Each Of Us A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves. -- Bertrand de Jouvenel Aviation Safety is Our Business & Our Business is NOT For Sale SOUTHERN REGION Tom Forte, Acting Director and Richard Anderson, Acting Coordinator Old News: By now everyone has heard that the Conference Committee has sold us out and we're facing a FAA Reauthorization bill that does not include us. The House is in recess and hopefully by the time this gets to you we will have gotten past the Senate without the bill having come up for a vote. We encourage everyone to contact their respective senators and congresspersons and ask them to vote against this bill when it comes up. Everyone needs to be calling, including your family and friends. The more calls they get, the more apt they are to pay attention to it. MEO: Dave is still hard at work on the MEO Team. He says that they are still in the early stages of developing and setting everything up. There is not much that he can disclose at this time due to the sensitivity of the work, which he says is starting to come fast and furious. The Southern Region is proud that he is representing us! Southern Region: We've received notice that Ms. Blakey has issued an order (FAA Order 3710.18) directing that all negotiations and agreements be forwarded to the next level before being signed. We have two problems with this. First, in the Southern Region, some of our management teams cannot read or interpret the English language. The order is speaking of any new negotiations or agreements, not items that are covered by our contract. For example, under article 34-01, it states, "Basic Watch Schedules shall be developed by the parties at the local level." Watch schedules are covered by the contract and do not need to be raised to the region. Second, even though the order states "LOB [Line of Business] representatives shall normally be delegated to lead local (field facility) negotiations," several of the more infamous mismanagement teams in the region are passing everything to the region so that they don't have to make any decisions. The ATM's have probably been designated as the LOBs for their facility. They should come to your meetings ready to make a decision, and not pull the old "I have to pass this to the region" routine. If you run into problems with this, please contact us and we'll lead you through the ULP or Grievance process, whichever is more advantageous for us depending upon the issue. San Juan AIFSS: It seems we had an employee whose wife had a baby. The employee asked for time off to take his wife and newborn home from the hospital and for three weeks of maternity leave. Under the law, employees are entitled to 12 months of LWOP, if they so desire, to assist in the care of their newborn baby. This employee only asked for three weeks. Not only was this request, which is covered by the law denied, but he was also told that if he wanted time off to take his wife and baby home from the hospital, he would have to swap shifts with another employee. The local management was not only breaking the law, but they were completely void of any feelings of humanity for this employee. We resolved the situation with a call to the region, but it's important to expose these situations when they occur. MCN AFSS: We have an employee who management has proposed a removal due to a performance issue. This is a veteran employee who may or may not have made a mistake and since the NTSB investigation has not been completed, we don't know yet. Local management has failed to respond to 20 of the 24 items requested in the information request stating that there was not a particularized need cited. The local union has submitted a second information request with specific items specified in the request. They've also asked for an extension for the employee response since management has failed to abide by 7114. MIA AIFSS: Employee has received proposal for a five-day suspension for refusing to follow an order or direction. What management does not include in their proposal is that the employee did report to the position after being reminded that he was assigned to it. Maybe not timely, but he did report. They also don't include the fact that another supervisor has verbally denied some of the events that the supervisor in question claims happened. Management has refused to let this supervisor give the union a statement since her statement would obviously blow their case. They have acted solely on the false accusations of another supervisor and have refused to gracefully drop the complaint. This one, if not settled regionally with a dismissal will go to arbitration. Miami, Part II: The Union requested the staffing numbers from management in order to create the 2004 Watch Schedule over two months ago. Management has failed to provide the numbers need stating that they had to go through the region first. The funny thing is that they didn't have to go through the region to tell the FacRep that they were no longer allowing AWS and were reducing the mid-watch staffing from 4 to 3. It's called "making up the rules as you stumble along." RDU AFSS: Staffing numbers were negotiated and agreed to between the parties for this year's watch schedule. A temporary supervisor detail ended and management did not backfill the position. Instead they arbitrarily raised the staffing numbers on the eve shift, which of course affects leave. The FacRep requested bargaining and was denied. This is basic LMR. All together now, "Anything that affects working conditions has to be negotiated." This one is going to the quarterly and unless the region supports the contract, it will also go to arbitration. Regional Wrap-up: The agency realizes that we have devoted a tremendous amount of energy to the A-76 issue. Because of this, they are trying to take advantage of us in every way possible. Do not let your guard down. Perform your job strictly by the book. Do your pre-duty briefings. They obviously have no problem with suspending or removing our members, even though their own managers can get away with a multitude of sins against the employees and customers of this region. They don't have to come to work. They don't have to make decisions. They don't have to abide by the conduct and discipline rules. They don't contribute to the mission of the agency and yet, they'll be in the facilities stumbling blindly along long after all of us are gone. Protect yourselves by doing your job by the book! In the meantime, all FacReps should ensure that the articles contained in the contract are strictly adhered to. If not, file the grievance. SOUTHWEST REGION Mark Jaffe, Director Hello, I have been traveling with the PWS Core Team as we finish up the activity dictionary and go to the next phase of the PWS process. There has been one major change, PWS-wise. Oscar Hinojosa has joined the PWS Core Team to replace Tim DeGrazio. Tim was a huge asset to the team because of his technical knowledge and Oscar�s experience and knowledge of Flight Service has allowed a seamless transition. Regional News In regional news, I have selected Jim Hale as the Regional Coordinator. Jim works at SJT and I am looking forward to working with him. There will be a training session for FacReps sometime towards the end on September. Details on the exact time and location are to follow. Welcome to Deidra DeBorde and Ernest Jones at FTW. Wally will be visiting the region the second week of October. He and I will try to visit as many facilities as possible in the 4 or 5 days available. The very tentative schedule includes visits to FTW on 10/12, CXO and DRI on 10/13, JBR on 10/14, and SJT on 10/16. I am still working on how to get to MLC and ABQ and will finalize plans soon. Reasons to Support NAATS I had a FacRep ask me a question the other day that has caused me a lot of thought. This FacRep said, "I have to go back to my facility next week, and my members are going to ask me why they should stay in the Union. What should I tell them?" Most of you have heard this question before. I hear it occasionally and I almost always have the same initial reaction. FRUSTRATION! I immediately think, "How can you ask that question? Just pay attention and you will see the answer." But then I realize that, no matter how hard we try to keep our members informed, the average FPL doesn�t have the same information that I have. Here are just a few reasons to support your Union:
I�ll be the first to admit that we are having an incredibly rough time making progress on any of the major national union issues but let me try to speculate on where we would be without NAATS. A-76 This would make all the other issues moot because without the union, you probably would NOT have a job right now. I believe that the people in the FAA, who control this program, would like to see the end of Flight Service as we know it. Without all the hard work to stop this study, the FAA would now be preparing to name a contractor. NAATS has spent a great deal of time and money to kill A-76 and continues to fight. Don�t believe the people who say that this fight is hopeless. We still have a chance. We continue to make the FAA follow the rules of an A-76 study, which they would not be doing without NAATS looking over their shoulder. No one has oversight over this process. Congress currently has no authority to tell the FAA how they must conduct an A-76 study. They could do whatever they wanted and ignore all the rules if it weren�t for union involvement. Don�t think, for a second, that the FAA wouldn�t have accelerated the time schedule and finished us off, by now, if it weren�t for NAATS. Pay For the first time in 4 or 5 years, we seem to be having serious talks about how to settle the pay dispute. No, I don�t know if we will get a raise. No federal union, including NATCA, is being offered any pay increase. The FSIP piece in the FAA Reauthorization Bill was dropped in conference. This seemed to give us some leverage in the pay talks but when Don Young folded, in conference, we lost any advantage that the FSIP might have given us. So even with this depressing scenario facing us on pay, ask yourself; would we be better off without the union? Of course not because, without NAATS, we would be assured that we would get nothing more than the yearly cost of living increases. At least this way we still have a chance. Try to be patient. Contract We are all upset that the FAA will not honor the contract that was agreed upon. But keep in mind, we will eventually get them to recognize the new contract and we will then reap the benefits that it contains, OJT pay, CIC pay, unlimited credit time, etc. This is real simple, it there was not a union there would NOT be a contract. We wouldn�t have the current contract to protect us until the new one is in effect, we wouldn't have anything. Now apply that to the rest of my list, schedule and staffing, and all the other things in the workplace that we handle everyday and try to imagine what your workday would be like without the union. Our schedules would be adjusted, daily, at the whims of whatever supervisor was on duty. We would get whatever days off that management assigned to us. We would work without rest breaks and meal breaks on most days. How would we fight disciplinary actions? I could go on and on about what would happen if we didn�t have the protection of the union but I'm sure that you can come up with plenty of good reasons, on your on.
So to answer the question, "why should I stay in the union?" How could you
NOT stay in the union? You are NAATS. NAATS is nothing more, or less, than
its members. If you give up on NAATS, you give up on yourself. We are
involved in a fight for our jobs. I�m not going to quit fighting. WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION Mike Stafford, Director and Mike Puffer, Coordinator Need a Job?? Free Helmet and Flak Jacket Included! Remember last month when I said our former leader was working for someone who was going to bid on our contracting out? I guess I was wrong (although not for sure yet). Here is what he is really doing now (contrary to the opinions of some in Management who told me he was raising turnips or something in Alabama): ATCS for IRAQ Non-radar ARTCC Non-radar Approach Control 5 VFR Towers Total number of ATCSs needed: Up to 45 Tour: 1 year with 2 week R&R When: Leave within 90 days Travel and subsistence covered
Living conditions: Military style compound with security If
you are interested please send me your resume via e-mail: bill.xxx@xxx
(Email deleted for privacy reasons.) HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS Scott Morrissy, FacRep On the Training Front Jabali Person (DM) completed his NWS checkride and is now certified on Preflight. He�s now working on to Flight Data. The home stretch -- Inflight is looming in the distance. Laz Arteaga (LA) is progressing on Preflight and should be seeing his certification checkride soon. Presidential TFRs President Bush�s recent visit to Southern California brought us a new round of presidential TFRs to cope with. I want to know is whose bright idea was it to give AOPA advance notice on them? We had pilots calling for TFR information days before we got the official TFR messages. Besides this making us look like fools who don�t know anything, has anybody thought of implications of sharing this information with an organization like AOPA? What would stop a terrorist from joining AOPA without anyone realizing it? Can you say, potential breach of national security? New Breakroom Furniture All the new breakroom furniture all in place. It�s a relief to have a decent couch again. I hear the old one was picked up by Lady Heather�s House of Pain. Full Facility Evaluation The
full facility evaluation will take place during the week of September 8th.
We�ve all been through a tough year with A-76 and everything, but I know we
can all make a little extra effort and put our best foot forward for the
evaluation team. It�s our facility. Let�s show some pride in the work we do.
NAATS News Editorial Policy Nothing that is inflammatory or scurrilous, libelous, attacks members by name or which contains words or phrases that are in poor taste and likely to be unnecessarily offensive, should be printed in the NAATS News or Regional Supplements. Individual(s) views expressed in the newsletter do not necessarily reflect the position of the Union. |
