Wally Pike, NAATS President On the Legislative Front FAA Reauthorization was a non-starter in the House this week due to the absence of enough votes for it to pass. Appropriations Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) declared his intent to vote against the bill and 71 other Republicans were at least considering voting no for various reasons. The White House still maintains the President will veto the bill if it limits FAA privatization. Regardless of the House action, the bill will still have to pass the Senate where there is even more opposition. A six month bill extending funding authorization for the FAA will be offered today. This may be initiated in the House but the Senate version, sponsored by Senator Lautenberg, will include privatization language. The specific part of Section 305 that applies to us states:
We ask that you call your congressional representatives and ask them to support the Senate spending extension. The FAA 2004 appropriation is contained in H.R. 2989, the Transportation-Treasury spending bill. On Tuesday Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD, NAATS HQ is in his district) offered an amendment that would prevent the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from enforcing its May directive to federal agencies and force adherence to the previous circular. This amendment passed 220-198 despite a presidential veto threat. The Senate version (S. 1589) does not contain this amendment and no Senate floor action has been scheduled. Differences between the bills will have to be reconciled before the bill can be forwarded to the President. Net effect - since the FAA has consistently declined to specify how they are using the A-76 circular in relation to the Acquisition Management System (AMS), this amendment will no doubt further confuse and mystify them. House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Mica will hold hearings next week on the IG contract tower report. We�ll closely monitor this for any impact to us. Chairman Mica does not feel that H.R. 2115 will be passed this month. As we go along we gain more and more support in both the House and Senate from both sides of the aisle. As I�ve said before, this fight is far from over and I appreciate all of your constituent efforts in contacting your congressional representatives. I ask that you continue to make them aware of our concerns. On the FAA Front Thanks to ATS-1 Steve Brown, we have resolved the issue of A-76 Representative Kate Breen�s detail and she will be extended. Unfortunately I haven�t been able to get resolution on the other two PWS issues from ARA; specifically (1) whether our PWS representatives will be allowed to meaningfully participate and (2) extending the contract award (source selection decision) date back to the original timeframe of July 2005. ACA has taken the position that the PWS work is completed and that they and Grant Thornton will finish data collection, write the requirements documents and the quality assurance surveillance program (QASP). This position is inconsistent with their earlier statements about maximizing employee involvement, OMB guidance and our MOU. Next step is the Administrator and/or Deputy Administrator. National A-76 Representative Kate Breen, PWS Team Lead Mark Jaffe and I met with ACA-1 Joann Kansier, ARA-1 Charlie Keegan, ATS-1 Steve Brown and ADA-1 Shirley Miller yesterday to attempt to resolve the PWS issues. Again, we were unsuccessful. There are two significant issues; (1) participation by our PWS team representatives and (2) the contract award date. Regarding (1) We have asked that our team representatives be allowed to help write the requirements document as well as the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). FAA management continues to state that our team representatives can "comment" on the requirements document and QASP after the contractor has written the documents. They seemed to completely misunderstand the significance between the two concepts. It�s important to note that there are no legal or regulatory problems with our helping to write these documents; it�s merely an arbitrary decision by ACA to restrict our participation. Of course this flies in the face of OMB guidance and statements from both ACA and the Administrator on involving the workforce to the maximum extent in this process. On (2) ACA stated that the Administrator made the decision to move the completion date up from July �05 to December �04. ACA went on to say that their concern was to get the process completed as soon as possible so that it wasn�t hanging over the heads of the employees. Our response that it�s much more important to the bargaining unit that the process be conducted properly instead of in a rush seemed to fall on deaf ears. Next stop for both these issues is the FAA Administrator. Please keep in mind that it is very important to be responsive and accurate when the MEO requests information from the field. This is essential for MEO success if the A-76 runs its entire cycle. Communicating Our Message Congratulations to ANM Director Darrell Mounts for his article in the NY Times. Darrel was also part of the group we had at OSH that mailed out over 7,000 post cards to Congress and AOPA. Thanks also to AGL Director Jack O�Connell, AEA Acting Director Ron Consalvo, Webmaster John Dibble, Harold Brooks (FOD), and Bernie Anderson (ISP) for all their work. OASIS National Representative Jeff Barnes wrote an excellent article to Jerry Lavey who does the weekly AOA highlights. Mr. Lavey is communicating with Jeff regarding the distribution of this letter; Jeff will include a copy in his next OASIS Update. John Dibble has posted a letter from Senator Lautenberg and Congressman Oberstar to Secretary Mineta. We are concerned about the effect of questionable FAA lobbying on the eleven Republican senators who voted for the Lautenberg Amendment, particularly Senator Inhofe (OK). Please contact these senators and help us ensure they stay committed. Pay Ballots Sent The Pay Plan ballots will be mailed on August 29 and due back November 14. Hard copies of the pay plan package will be mailed to FacReps at all facilities where we have members. A copy will be posted on our website and electronic copies will be available from [email protected], upon request. The package will include the pay plan and three TAUs (Reopener, Implementation and Reimbursement of Education Expenses). The advance implementation of TAU 23 (training and official time) will not be included as it is an MOU and not a part of the pay plan or work rules. We are scheduling facility trips to brief the membership and to answer any questions.
By
Christopher Lee Rules That Require Outsourcing Are Killed The House yesterday approved a 4.1 percent pay raise for federal civilian employees and killed new rules designed to speed Bush administration efforts to require federal workers to compete with the private sector for their jobs. The proposed raise, included in the $89.3 billion Transportation/Treasury appropriations bill the House approved 381 to 39 yesterday, rejects a two-tiered plan by President Bush that would give an increase of 4.1 percent to the military but 2 percent to civilian employees. Lawmakers argued that Congress should uphold the tradition of "pay parity" and grant equivalent increases in base pay to the military and the civil service. "Pay parity is a principle that Congress consistently follows as a matter of fairness, and it is also an effective method of ensuring that we retain quality federal employees," said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who has many federal workers in his district. "A fair pay adjustment is especially urgent at this time when federal employees are working so hard to keep America safe." The bill also includes a 2.2 percent pay raise for members of Congress, which would boost most lawmakers� annual salaries to about $158,000 next year. The Senate appeared to be on a similar track over federal employee pay. The Senate Appropriations Committee last week approved a 4.1 percent increase for the 1.8 million federal civilian workforce. No date has been set for a full Senate vote. Although Bush officials opposed the higher pay raise, it was the changes to the president�s "competitive sourcing" initiative that drew a veto threat even before the bill�s passage. Bush believes requiring federal workers to compete for their jobs promotes efficiency, even if the positions stay in-house. Critics, including employee unions and many Democrats, say the president merely wants to farm out jobs to reward his business allies. The changes to his program came in an amendment by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that passed 220 to 198. It would require federal agencies funded by the House bill to toss out newly revised Office of Management and Budget regulations governing competitions between federal and private workers, and return to an older set of rules. The Senate bill does not contain similar language, but federal employee union officials said they would work to get it in. The new OMB rules, approved in May and known as Circular A-76, "tilted the playing field very much in favor of privatization and against federal employees," Van Hollen said in an interview after the vote. He said the government needs to "go back and review the A-76 provisions and come up with a system that's balanced and fair." Opponents of the amendment said such a requirement could hinder the "competitive sourcing" initiative government-wide. "The taxpayers save money every time we go through the competitive sourcing process," said Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.). "Effectively this amendment would kill competitive sourcing." Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said the Bush policy has problems, but that the OMB revised the rules following months of comment from all affected parties. Another OMB rewrite "could be more onerous," Davis said, "and we couldn�t stop that." OMB officials pressed hard for the May revisions, which are expected to reduce to 12 to 18 months job competitions that often took two to four years to complete. The changes also made it harder to define jobs as "inherently governmental" (and therefore protected from contracting out) and wiped out a requirement that contractors cost at least 10 percent less than the in-house bid. In a statement of administration policy issued before the vote, OMB officials said, "Now is the wrong time to short-circuit implementation of this principle" of competition. Federal employee union leaders applauded the House action on all counts. "This is the pay raise that should have been supported by the president long ago and will be very much appreciated by the federal employees," said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. As for the rule changes, she said: "We�ll have to wait and see. We think it means a halt to the competitions... Even if they want to proceed with competitions under the old rules, they would have to stop and analyze all of the competitions that are underway to make sure they meet the old criteria." John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the House had demonstrated bipartisan opposition to Bush�s "privatization agenda." "The American taxpayers are footing the bill whether federal employees or contractors are providing government services," Gage said. "They should be getting the best deal for their hard-earned dollars." In another blow to the administration, neither the House nor the Senate appeared likely to grant Bush�s request to create a $500 million "performance fund," which agencies could tap to reward their civilian workers with higher raises. In still another slap to the administration, the House appropriations bill effectively lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba and caps on the amount of money that can be sent to households in Cuba from sources in the United States -- both steps the White House opposed.
The
House bill lifts the constraints by preventing the use of federal funds to
enforce travel restrictions and the sending of money to Cuban households. Kate Breen, A76 Representative -- [email protected] A-76 Binders in the Facilities By now most of you should have at least one copy of the A-76 binder sent out to the facilities, the August Briefer was sent out, and the ACA web site is up and running. The communications team met this week and one of the major topics of discussion was the need for answers to Human Resource (HR) questions that have been coming in. It seems that most of you have a pretty good idea how this A-76/AMS process works, and the questions that are coming up have to do with what happens after the decision is made. The Agency Should Have Answers The problem once again is the agency should have had answers to these questions before they started this process or at the very least shortly after starting it back in May of 2002. It appears they don�t have many answers right now having to do with movement to other options, PCS moves, save pay, early outs, buy outs, bumping rights, return rights, placement programs, and so on. If you have questions you need answers on right away on some of these HR issues please forward them to your regional HR people and see if they can answer them. In the meantime I will be digging, Bill Dolan will be going to a RIF class the middle of September, and if I�m still here, I�ll be going to an HR class the first week of October. Once again this is a huge area that should have been taken care of in pre-planning, but the agency is still planning to go ahead with the public announcement the end of September or beginning of October. It would be one thing if other government agencies had never been through this, but they have, in fact the Department of Interior has some good frequently asked questions on their web site and I�m sure I�ll find others as a dig further. The point here being the agency could easily ask for help if they need to, but their in-action on HR questions is just one more cruel way they are treating our people. The ACA-1 and 2 Show A couple of other things to update you on are a web cast by Jerry Lavey with ACA-1 as the guest and the ATCA symposium tape. First the web cast, if you watch it please understand that it is the management spin once again and Mr. Lavey assured Wally that he would preface the broadcast with a disclaimer stating that in some way. The ATCA symposium tape, or should I say what was supposed to be the ATCA symposium tape has turned into a full blown production. Instead of taking pieces of all of the speakers from the symposium, it ends up being an ACA-1 and 2 show, with a few words from a lawyer, an AF engineer, the OMB rep, a contractor from CSC, and the program manager. Now, I�ll be honest and say that I haven�t seen the tape yet, so I�ll reserve complete judgment on it until I see it. The only thing I will advise beware, it may anger you once more or make you ill. Looking at the script it has "this process is the best thing since sliced bread" spin on it. Oh, and just because I didn�t make it into the flick I�m not bitter; I was just hoping it would be a catalyst for my acting career!!! (Kidding, only kidding) I am amazed however that ACA is cutting the PWS data collection because of funding, yet they have the money to hire a producer, run back and forth to OKC, and all this for the workforce! In my humble opinion, we need the PWS done right and we could skip the fluff and propaganda on this issue. The one bright spot in the video is they went to Wichita AFSS and did some shots, I can�t wait to see those shining faces maybe it will kick off some of their acting careers! Seriously, thanks to the folks out there for letting them take your pictures and a big thank you to Pam Anderson the Central Region A-76 Representative for making sure our bases were covered. Transition Time I did travel up to the New England Region Quarterly a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed seeing everyone and giving a briefing on A-76. Thanks to Kurt for asking me to come up, it was great to see everyone. There was one IOU I came out of there with on transition time after the decision date. I�ve only touched the surface on some of the studies done and I will look further, but what I�ve found at first glance is that the Department of Interior figures only 60-90 days for transition. There again those jobs done are currently being done outside of government and are an easy transition. The thought right now on our process is more like 2-3 years from decision date. Please understand that nothing is cast in stone and I don�t know that it will be 2-3 years, but that is the best guess right now. I promise to update you as I know more. Now on a personal note, at the top some of you may have noticed I said "if I�m still here"! Well the agency has decided that it wasn�t worth having me here full time so the funding for my detail ends on September 30, 2003. Wally is working the issue very hard and hopefully I will continue after October 1, 2003, because there is still a lot you all need to know and these "fluff flicks" are not going to do it! Stay tuned on this issue, I�ll update you there as well. Hang in there and have a safe Labor Day weekend, I can�t believe the summer is over already. A-76 or Acquisition -- Who Knows? I�m sure by now you�ve read Wally�s update in regards to the meeting the other day with some of the major players in this acquisition -- oh wait, I mean A-76 -- no, no I mean acquisition. Well let me just call it the "process" from here on out, because I don�t really know what the heck it is at this point! Anyway, the PWS team is trying to do its work on telcons, which personally I don�t think is very effective. Why are they doing telcons, you might ask? Well according to ACA-1 it�s not due to budget constraints, I guess that�s the way ACA likes to do business. Something as complex and large as this and let�s try to get it done over several telcons instead of bringing the team into DC (or anywhere else for that matter) to sit down at the table and work through it. So the PWS team is working hard to try and give input to data collection for the first draft of the PWS which is scheduled to be released to FAA only the beginning of 1st quarter of FY04 (October). Right now NAATS participation is considered (in ACA�s eyes) as the team being able to review the PWS draft and comment, not that there is any commitment to include the comments! I�ll bet the "straw man" (having one person write the requirements document) theory was used on STARS and OASIS also, we all know what successes those acquisitions were! The PWS team has a tough job ahead of them, not just the NAATS participants, but also the management air traffic side of the team, good luck guys! You also may see another survey coming out to the field from the PWS team, it�s supposed to be going to management, but we all know how that goes! I�m hoping you�ll get some king of heads up before it actually goes out, if I hear anything, I�ll let you know. The ATP MEO workgroup is getting out to some regions and facilities to tell what they can of what�s going on in their workgroup. Hopefully as the representatives return from their meetings they�ll have an update for all of you. I�m not sure where all of the locations and dates are or if other facilities were going to be allowed to telcon in, so stay tuned. I�d be happy to forward any briefings out that people supply. It will be important for the folks in those regions who are not getting briefings to at least have some idea of what�s going on in the ATP MEO workgroup arena. Dates and Milestones I haven�t heard anything on the results of the pilot surveys that were done in the month of August, nor have I been briefed on the scoping activities (what�s in/what�s out). What I can give you is some of the upcoming dates/milestones. Complete Government Furnished Equip/Government Furnished Property inventory 9/26/03. Finalize risk management assessment report on 9/30/03 "Risk Management applies to all levels of agency activity, from small projects to large programs. It applies to such risk areas as cost, schedule, technical, system safety, all security disciplines, human factors, operability, producibility, supportability, benefits, management, funding, and stakeholder satisfaction (e.g., Congressional and aviation community priorities; union concerns." This was taken from the FAA AMS. Take this process to the Joint Resources Council (JRC) 9/30/03 -- "JRC is the FAA�s body responsible for making corporate level decisions. Membership consists of Assoc. Administrators representing all lines of business investment areas of the agency (Air Traffic Services, Regulation and Certification, Airports, Research and Acquisitions, and Commercial Space Transportation), the FAA Acquisition Executive, the Assistant Administrators for System safety, for Policy, Planning and International Aviation, and for Region and Center Operations Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, and Legal Counsel." This was also taken from the FAA AMS.
Make public announcement 10/01/03 to include scope of
competition and proposed acquisition approach. Select offerors to compete from down-select by 11/21/03. Human Resources Issues The last thing I want to touch on is some of the questions that have been coming in on HR issues. I�m working to put together a list/matrix of HR issues that are negotiable, my thought here is once I find out what won�t be negotiated I can find the regulations on those issues and pass them along. I�m also enrolled in an A-76 HR class 10/2 and 10/3 here in Washington, hopefully I�ll gain some insight and contacts there. The political fires are still burning strong and getting stronger every day, so try and keep the faith!
FedNews Online, Sept. 17, 2003 Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee, have proposed legislation to extend for six months funding for important aviation programs that would otherwise lapse Sept. 30. Among other things, the bill would address immediate safety and security issues, including a prohibition on privatization of the nation�s air traffic control system. It also allows Congress time to work on the four-year, $60 billion Federal Aviation Administration�s spending bill. Lautenberg declared the FAA Reauthorization Conference Report dead on arrival as a result of the Bush Administration�s insistence that it include language allowing for the privatization of the nation�s air traffic control system. Both the House and Senate voted in June to approve legislation barring the White House from privatizing air traffic control. However, President Bush threatened to veto any bill including a prohibition, and the language was later taken out. Democrats appear to have enough votes in the House and Senate to shoot down an FAA reauthorization package that does not prohibit air traffic control privatization, reports Congress Daily. Surveys show that more than 70 percent of the American public wants to keep the system in the hands of the federal government, said National Air Traffic Controllers Association President John Carr.
"The American traveling public deserves a strong Federal
Aviation Administration bill that protects their safety and improves air
travel," Carr stated. "Congress is willing to stand up for safety and protect
vital airport projects. We look forward to continuing to work with all members
to ensure that the FAA bill is the best it can be, which means preventing the
world's safest and most efficient air traffic control system from being
contracted out to the lowest bidder." Jeff Barnes, OASIS National Representative, [email protected]
08/29/03 - My apologies for the gap since my last report, but I
have been waiting for some key events to take place, including an Acquisition
Review and a Program Management Review in the last couple of days. FY2004 money has been committed to fielding 12 facilities. You have seen the new waterfall for those 12 facilities. The new waterfall decided on by the Human Factors Team is consistent with the recommended waterfall submitted by the NAATS Board of Directors. The only point of contention is the 11th site for the year. That has come down to being a choice between PRC and SJT. There are strong arguments for both, but no consensus could be reached at our July meeting. PRC and SJT have each sent in a paper supporting their selection. We are doing some further talking and planning and we plan to have a decision agreed to at the Human Factors Team meeting the last week of October. At that time I expect the Team to also identify the remaining order after the 12 for 2004. Going to the JRC It looks like OASIS will be going to JRC (Joint Resources Council) in October. This is where acquisition programs go to ask for more money or more time to complete their programs. We have known for months that OASIS cannot ask for more money thanks to A-76. As a result of this the program will not receive an infusion of money that had been planned for a couple years. The impact of this is that OASIS has money to deploy to 12 sites in FY2004, but very little money for any software development. The budget for FY2005 did not include enough money to deploy to 12 more sites (considering the higher lease bill with the extra sites installed in 2004), so it was decided to use the 8 million dollars or so not obligated to complete the primary development of the system, basically adding in the features we don�t have yet and fixing the remaining known problems. Now, thanks again to A-76, OASIS faces a 10 million dollar cut in FY2005. How this cut works, as far as I understand it (budget stuff is voodoo and black magic to me...nasty stuff that almost always winds up hurting, not helping) is that the FAA has identified (or had identified to them) an overall cap for their FY2005 budget. So they had to fit all their programs under it. When the math was done the number I hear is that they were 150 million over the cap, so the budget coven met and did two things. They identified the sexy programs, the ones that the FAA wanted to fund fully, and blocked those off, then they started looking for money. They saw OASIS... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that anything Flight Service has a huge bulls eye painted on it due to the A-76, so OASIS was a particularly juicy target. They decided to cut OASIS funding by 10 million dollars for FY2005. AOPA Unresponsive That�s how we got to where we are now. We have fought this as hard as we could. I have called AOPA. Wally and I have met with Steve Brown (ATS-1). I even tried to bring it up in the Acquisition Review Wednesday. AOPA made noises of concern but we have heard nothing about them actually doing anything (anyone surprised?) to help us counter it (I never even got the call back that I was assured I would receive after passing along this information). It's a difficult thing to fight right now because of where we are in the budgetary cycle. The FAA response can be (and has been) that there is no cut yet. The FY2005 budget request either hasn�t even been submitted yet or we haven�t even gotten the pass back from OMB yet. That makes it real easy for them to try to blow some sunshine up our skirts (casual days are little out of control at headquarters. he he) and not have to give it any serious attention or defense until it�s a done deal. The thing that sucks about this is that it�s the FAA doing this to us, not mean old Mr. Congress, or big bad Mr. Bush. Again, thanks to A-76. So if this goes down according to plan what this means is that OASIS will be cut so badly that the program office is not sure it will have enough money to pay for the systems that will already be deployed. This of course has to be done. There was some consideration given to reducing the number of facilities deployed in FY2004 to mitigate this, but my compliments to the OASIS Program Office because they decided to stick to the schedule and let the chips fall where they may in FY2005. However, that is one highly anemic ray of light in all the dark. There will be no further development of OASIS in FY2005. There will be no further deployment of OASIS in 2005. The OASIS staff at Harris will be shredded (we�ve had this happen once before...it means a significant lag time to bring new engineers up to speed prior to getting more development done once money is available). The support staff at the Tech Center will be trashed (why spend money for testing when there is nothing new to test?). The support staff in the program office will be cut (This is big because there are only one or two FAA employees there on OASIS. The rest are contract support, and we�re lucky to have them, because they are excellent at what they do.). So OASIS will wind up being a couple or a few people in the program office dealing with the Harris money people (I have no idea how this will impact the people in Air Traffic who work on OASIS. They are not directly impacted, but I would expect that there wouldn�t be a lot of enthusiasm to work a program that is essentially not a program). OASIS will be in a coma, and bringing it back up will be a slow and no doubt painful process. There is a little hope for OASIS... Charlie Keegan (ARA-1, Head of Research and Acquisitions) asked for a report on what the program could do if 4 million dollars was added in FY2005 and again in FY2006 for the purpose of system development. This sounds great, but I have no optimism that it will go anywhere. I hope I�m proven wrong but I very much doubt I will be. So, this is the reality we live in currently. Our programs are getting hammered, we have to settle for less than we deserve on pay, and we have to deal from a position of weakness unlike any position we have held before. With A-76 hanging over us there is no reason why anyone in the FAA should do anything for us. The very best response we can hope to get is "we�ll talk about it after the A-76 is decided." As often or more often we see a complete lack of regard for Flight Service because of the A-76. The biggest change is an unwillingness to do anything related to Flight Service unless it�s adverse. I hate it, but I can understand it, unfortunately. Why would a senior FAA Manager want to agree to spending a dime, much less millions of dollars on an activity that might not be around in 16 months? At the very least, even if it is still around then it will be changing significantly so doing anything now is a waste of time and money. The one area where we do see plenty of activity around the A-76 is from those associated with the A-76, and those who feel the need to throw their hat into the justification ring. Gerald Lavey works for VOICE. They are tasked with improving communications throughout the Agency as a result of a survey that showed communications is perceived as horrible throughout the FAA. He is the person who interviewed ACA-1 for the VOICELive webcast on A-76 that will be on the VOICE Intranet site soon (if not already). He also writes a weekly update of what the Administrator is doing called the AOA-1 Highlights. He has been reporting on the progress of the FAA Reauthorization Bill, and in one of his highlights he added an op-ed piece about why A-76 is good. I read it and had to respond. This is what I wrote: Having established that I am in Flight Service because I love the job, and not because it�s the only place I can be in the FAA, it is disheartening to watch the FAA deliberately and willfully set out to destroy every shred of morale that remained in Flight Service. I find it educational that the high levels of FAA management are resorting to double-speak to divorce us from the rest of the controllers. I find it disgusting to see that there is no concern for the lives of the people who are Flight Service controllers that Marion Blakey is ripping up and throwing away. I am seeing first hand and close up the uncaring nature of someone for whom numbers are all important. Someone who cares not a bit for people who have poured their hearts into their jobs for many years but who are not worthy of any kind of caring words by the people who are pouring massive resources into getting rid of them. I feel like I�m regarded as something noxious that has been found stuck to the bottom of Marion Blakey�s shoe, being scraped off with a stick and a disgusted expression. I think this is the view shared by the vast majority of the Flight Service controllers out in the field. Oh, and for those of us not eligible to retire in the next year or two... Fear, constant fear of what will happen to us when we get scraped off. Being a controller is not a marketable skill. Unlike being in high-level management, we cannot shop ourselves to the corporate world with any hope of bettering our situation. Frankly, this is a response whose only expected result is that I walk away afterward knowing that I did the right thing. I have no expectation that it will change your view, or create understanding of what is being thought by the peons of the organization. I certainly don't think it will change any plans of management who have shown no sure grasp of reality for controllers. What it will do is make me feel a little better for the ten minutes it takes for me to finish reading my mail then walk down the hallway to discover what the latest bomb dropped on OASIS or Flight Service is. Thanks for your time, Jeff Barnes I expected this to have no effect. I did it just because I felt I had to for my own sake. However, I was surprised to receive a response from Jerry. Basically he said there were things he didn�t agree with in what I wrote, but that I had captured the true feelings of the controllers in the field and he asked me if he could forward this to upper management so they could see what people from the field really feel about the management of this Agency. I said sure, and this has opened up a dialogue between NAATS, Jerry, and myself. I am not sure what will come of this. Jerry is not in a position to get us a raise or stop the A-76 or anything like that. His job is to promote better communications. Where this could have some impact in the future is in balancing what comes out from management so that what we read has some meaning to us. Not just ludicrously happy cheering for themselves without any regard for what it means for those of us who do the minor job of talking to airplanes. Jerry told me he is very aware of our perception of the trustworthiness of management and that we have good reason to feel this way. He is trying to foster an honesty and appropriateness in the communications that will help establish some trust and relevance to it. However, he has to overcome our well-earned reluctance to trust and their inability to perceive that we have that mistrust, and that it is well deserved. My impression of Jerry is that he�s a good guy who has a job to do, but he wants to do it right for both the people that put him there and our people out in the field. At this point I think his job is like trying to empty a lake with a fork. It�s possible, but only with an incredible amount of time and effort put into it. On a semi-personal note, you have heard that there are changes happening for us at headquarters -- like some liaison jobs disappearing (hooray for the A-76...not!). My position as OASIS Representative will be changing as well. The timing is uncertain at this point, but in either October or January the OASIS Representative will become a part time job. This means I will be returning to BNA and then traveling as needed to OASIS events, and telconning in to meetings and such as necessary. I don't like it, but it is inevitable with the lessening activities due to decreasing budgets. One of the key roles I server being at headquarters is being able to stop into an office to see what�s going on and stopping problems before they become problems. With part-timing the OASIS Representative will become more of a reactive person than an active person in the program. Problems will happen and I will have to fix them afterwards, instead of before. It�s political reality and I�ve accepted it because to do otherwise would be an exercise in futility. Looking ahead I don�t see any good news looming for us till October, when we will get our first look at the software upgrade that will be installed at CXO. It should have some major improvements. The most notable being the TFR overlay capability which we have seen already, but it needed a few fixes that we will see in October. On a purely personal note... I am not eligible to retire until 2010, although I�ll have 20 years of good time in July of 2005. When I look at the A-76 I fear for what is to become of me as we all do. But I do have one thought. Where will a contractor get their workforce? While our experience as controllers does not make us suitable candidates for most jobs, conversely there is no job out there that could provide employees to do this job without major retraining. This means that whoever wins the contract is going to need us badly. With our right of first refusal and our retirement eligibility,0 contractors are going to have to get on our good sides to have hope of getting us to move out of government to them. I might be overly optimistic here, but I think we are in a decent position to take care of ourselves in the event of contracting out. Of course, I could have been infected by something at headquarters resulting in delusions as strong as theirs. (Hehe.) Stepping Down 09/15/03 - I am writing this to let you all know that I have submitted my resignation as the NAATS OASIS National Representative to the board effective with the completion of testing of the new software in CXO (End of January). This will also remove me from leadership and membership on the OASIS Human Factors Team at the same time. There is a personal, health related, element to this decision, but also I�ve put some thought into where and how I can serve you best in the coming year. Upon my resignation from this position I will join the OASIS National Training Cadre and will help to teach OASIS at facilities in the coming year. The work of the OASIS National Rep will be diminishing due to the lack of money to do any development or deployment beyond 2004 (as of now at least) and I believe I could make the best contribution by helping to train our controllers on the system. This also opens the door for some new blood to come in and have a chance to have an impact on the program before it completely winds down. I�m writing this not only to tell you I�m leaving, but also to encourage anyone in the union who has an interest in being the OASIS Tech Rep to let your Director know and to get a resume in to Wally Pike at the national office so they can choose my replacement at the October board meeting so we can get overlap time to bring the new person up to speed on the job. Speaking of the job... My main job is to pursue the policies decided by the board in regards to the OASIS program, and in the bigger picture work to ensure that the OASIS program moves forward in the way most favorable to our needs. As far as the FAA is concerned I am the voice of the board and each and every one of you and I have to remain aware of that at all times. I am the co-lead of the OASIS Human Factors Team. That means that I actively participate in the decision making of the team, but also means that while all of us represent the needs of the members working the positions I also represent the board directly on the team, and it is my responsibility to protect their interests in that forum (I�m not saying that this isn�t something that the other members of the team do also, but it is a direct responsibility of mine). In my position I am empowered by the board to make decisions on behalf of NAATS in the OASIS program. However, I have to evaluate each decision to determine whether it is a technical decision in my purview, or if it has implications beyond OASIS. These bigger issues I bring to the board for discussion and resolution, and I don�t hesitate to give my opinion to the board, although once the board has decided that is the course of action I pursue regardless of whether it was my recommendation or not (over my time here those times have been pretty rare, but again, it�s my job to represent the board and pursue their policies as our elected leadership, not my own). I also represent NAATS to everyone external to us in regards to OASIS. Therefore I participate in OASIS-related activities at all levels from the Administrator to the headquarters staff working the program. I also represent our interests outside the Agency with AOPA, NWS, news media, and any other people or organizations where NAATS needs to be represented on OASIS. I don�t do any of this in a vacuum. I keep lines of communication open with the various people I deal with at FAA, the NAATS Board, Wally Pike, our other liaisons and tech reps, and any field facilities where we have issues. There is plenty of support available from the union to help me do my job correctly. The FAA people I deal with regularly on OASIS also understand and provide the support I need to do my job because they need me successful to ensure their own success. On a day to day basis I participate in meetings and telcons and work the phones to keep the program moving in the direction we want it to go as much as I can. I attend all testing as an observer so I can keep a clear idea of the big picture on the status of the software (this has been by personal choice...whoever replaces me could actually be a tester if they choose to). I co-lead the Human Factors Team, helping my FAA co-lead Cindy Moran keep the meeting focused and moving and trying to stop the team from getting into circular reasoning whenever I see it happening. Kind of a glorified facilitator and participant all at once. I answer any questions that come in regarding OASIS and actively seek updates on the status of the many elements of the program. I enforce the agreements we have made with the FAA on OASIS through team charter, MOU, or HFT decision papers. I also promote OASIS, not as a mouthpiece of the FAA, but as a controller explaining the great things about the machine and the program in general. But this isn't shiny happy promotion, but rather a realistic promotion of our successes, not forgetting to look at where the program is failing and where we continue to need improvement. To me, a key function I perform politically at FAA is to keep awareness up of the success while also keeping awareness up that OASIS is not a done deal yet...that we still have things to do before we can really get to breaking our arms patting ourselves on the back. While Harris Corporation is under contract to the FAA, they understand our role in the OASIS program and they look to the NAATS Tech Rep for input on technical and functional questions as much as the agency. It�s important the Tech Rep have an understanding of what technical issues he or she can comfortably answer themselves, and what needs to go to the Human Factors Team for resolution...and to know when and how to emphasize when something is a personal opinion, and not necessarily a union position, and when it is a union position, to be treated as such. While there have been times when I have been silent for too long, I have always considered one of my most important functions is too keep you and the board as well informed as possible. This has been absolutely vital considering the atrocious lack of communication that exists within the FAA. As I have said before, I am well aware that my updates are not only the primary means of communication to you, but they also end up being a key source of the status of the OASIS program at all levels of the FAA and beyond. Our biggest advantage is our ability to communicate. That has gotten me further in this position than anything else. With the diminishing budget in front of us, as of January 1 this position will become part time. This means that the OASIS Tech Rep will be working out of their facility, participating via phone and telcon in the normal activities and traveling as necessary to meetings and activities that warrant face-to-face interaction. There is a good deal of travel involved, although I would not be surprised to see that diminish to an extent as the program activities decrease due to funding drying up. From the time they are selected by the board until my departure from the position at the end of January I will have the new Tech Rep participate with me as much as possible to give him or her an idea of what goes on and to get him or her acquainted with the people on the program. Further, I will not disappear into a hole when I leave. I will continue to be available to support the new Tech Rep however I can. When I first came to headquarters liaisons were still a new thing and I was thrown in the deep end of the pool and told to figure out how to swim. Over my years in DC we now have a good grasp on roles and responsibilities, so that even though there is a learning curve, you will have support so that the sharks won't close for the kill while you�re figuring out the finer points of the doggie paddle. I know this is short notice, but if you are interested in this position you need to let your director know and get a resume in to Wally Pike before the October board meeting (The week of October 6). I would recommend knowledge of OASIS either through previous participation in OASIS activities or being in a facility with OASIS. Good communications skills are critical. Some technical aptitude helps...it�s not necessary to be a computer wiz, but you need to be able to pick up technical knowledge to communicate most effectively with the engineers. Some knowledge of how the acquisition system works is helpful, but not necessary. You�ll pick that up whether you want to or not. Interpersonal skills are important also. It's very helpful to be able to remain calm and communicate reasonably in the face of really negative possibilities. We aren�t NATCA. We don�t have their visibility or power, so we can�t afford to play the 800 pound gorilla bending the FAA to our will. We have to be the voice of reason, making them come to our side through reasoned argument, showing them that we're not here for self-aggrandizement, but rather to mold their programs into successes for ourselves, which translate into successes for them. Again, you�ll have plenty of support in learning the ropes of this job. For me this has been a challenging, occasionally frustrating, but always rewarding job. I have some mixed emotions about giving it up, but it is time for me to move on. Thank you for allowing me to do this for you (this is foreshadowing of what will undoubtedly be an overblown thank you version of the OASIS Update in your future. hehe). Donna Holmes, NAATS MEO Team Member I just wanted to reiterate to everyone that the MEO team is the only lifeline we have if the A-76 continues down this disastrous path. As most of you know being a member of the MEO team we have had to sign a non-disclosure statement and are not allowed to share any ideas or plans we are considering. Doing so could harm our bid against the competitors. Please know that Dave Hoover and I are working for you. We are trying to get the answers to many of the questions you have been asking. But as Kate has said no one knows the answers. We monitor this web site as well as any input the Directors are willing to share. Please keep the comments coming. Even though we can�t respond we are listening!!
Thanks for all the hard work that everyone in the field is
doing. The surveys are important. The A-76 circular states that information
related to performance or productivity is proprietary information of the
incumbent agency/MEO. That is the only data that cannot be shared with the
competitors. Help us gain the COMPETITIVE EDGE! ARS Report Steve Pollok, ATP Liaison -- [email protected] NOTAM Short Term Solution (NSTS) A M1FC to NSTS Data Assessment was conducted at Macon AFSS (MCN), GA. and Cedar City AFSS (CDC), UT, on NSTS software version 2.02, August 25 -- August 28. Two teams composed of personnel from ARU, ATP, NAATS, and were needed, facility personnel, conducted the assessment. Actual assessment of the system was held on Aug. 26 and 27. Overall, the teams were impressed with the results and the NSTS performed as advertised. The Local NOTAM feature also performed as advertised. A big thanks goes to all the personnel at MCN, and CDC, who helped, or otherwise endured our presence, during the assessment. The first day, the teams entered ad hoc NOTAM retrieval commands into the system for various routes and locations. It was decided during the first day to turn on all the NSTS screens in both facilities. The system was left on during the night and no equipment or software problems were noted. The second day involved both teams simultaneously entering identical information requests, for identical routes/locations. Again, all screens were operational with four (4) positions at MCN, and three (3) at CDC, being used for the command entries. NSTS returned the requested information within 5-30 seconds, from command entry, for all seven positions. Some problems were observed, but none that would be considered a "show stopper". These items will be discussed and assigned a priority for correction in the next software version. When the teams departed the facilities, NSTS was left running on all positions so that specialists could become more familiar with the system. Air Traffic has not yet given the go ahead for the start of the Proof of Concept (POC) test. There still remains some discussion on the length of the POC testing, etc. However, I�m optimistic that we will be given the go ahead shortly after Labor Day. Integrated Information Display System (IIDS) There has been little, to no, activity since the IIDS presentation on July 14. There are some education efforts that need to be performed. There are still misconceptions, by some, on just what the system is, how it is intended to work, and why we need it. There has also been an attempt by our "friends" in the A-76 program to stop this, and other flight service programs, so that the associated funds can be used to for the A-76 study. I�m glad to report that this effort failed. OASIS/DUATS Integration An OASIS/DUATS briefing was given to Steve Brown, ATS-1 on August 21, by ARU-300. The briefing included a recommendation by ARS not to integrate DUATS into OASIS. The briefing also included a NAATS statement on the benefits, from integrating DUATS, for controllers, and pilots. ATS-1 took note of the benefits stated by NAATS. He has decided to defer any decision until he has an opportunity to further discuss, and determine, the implications of the A-76 study on a final decision. Tape Retention The word, that I have received, is that the FAA has decided to grant the NTSB request to retain voice recordings for 90 days. The plan is for this to be done only at facilities with digital voice recorders. There has been no indication of any plans to retain other associated materials for the same 90 days. There has been no indication of when this might go into effect. There would still need to be I & I negotiations with NAATS and NATCA. National Airspace System -- Interference Detection, Locating, and Mitigation (NAS-IDLM) No new information on this program. Aeronautical Information System Replacement (AISR) A demonstration was held at the EDS Corporation on August 13. I attended, along with Gary Bobik, ATP-320, Jim Perkins, NAATS ATP, and David Brooks, Lansing AFSS. David was brought in as a subject matter expert (SME) for the demonstration. The AISR looks, and operates, very similar to the AIS that we currently have. EDS, because of proprietary rights, had to reverse engineer the new system. In many ways it is more user friendly than the previous system. EDS has also developed a NOTAM program to take the place of the Electronic NOTAM Log (ENL), and NOTAMS 2000. Neither of these programs can be used on the AISR due to security. The security issue is mainly one of the proprietary rights of the ENL and NOTAMS 2000 developers, along with not being able to allow an individual developer access where they could possibly make changes to a national program. Another issue is that the system will be on FIRMNET, which will allow the system to be continually on-line. The NAATS/ATP team noted several items that require improvement before the system reaches the field. EDS was receptive to these recommendations, but could not guarantee that they could be accomplished prior to deployment. They have asked for David to return in September and assist them in these improvements. Some of the corrections may not be available until 60-90 days after deployment when an upgraded software version is released. One of the bigger problems with the AISR is that the EDS NOTAM program does not have a tower light database that will give the specialist the location of a tower. I would recommend that all facilities keep a copy of their ENL/NOTAMS 2000 program on another PC. It does not look like this problem will be fixed in time for the September 30. Still another problem, is that the AISR cannot interface with the IDS-4 systems currently in use in the Central Region. Again there are proprietary rights issues with the developer of the IDS-4. A meeting is in the works to discuss this problem further. International Flight Plans No new information on this proposal. NAATS Representatives As you may have heard, or read, the FAA has proposed to part time the NAATS OASIS Representative. NAATS is in discussions with the FAA to continue this position. The FAA has decided to discontinue the NAATS ARU and ATX Liaisons. When Art Finnegan, ARU, and Beth Gerrits, ATX, leave in September there will be no one coming to take over their duties. If this does in fact happen, I have been told that I will be picking up the ARU programs, and some of the ATX duties. ARU Report Art Finnegan, ARU Liaison -- [email protected] Graphical Area Forecast (GFA) Another meeting of the GFA workgroup was held the week of Aug. 11th for the purpose of completing rules, definitions and recommendations for the GFA. The results of the work were presented on Friday of that week to users including NAATS, AOPA, ATA, and ALPA. The workgroup will meet again in September to refine the requirements for the GFA according to the feedback they received from the users. Soon after, the specifications for the GFA will be compiled and given to software engineers at the NWS to build a program to produce the GFA. The schedule calls for testing of a prototype GFA by Flight Service Controllers in 2004. Stand Alone Weather System (SAWS) An evaluation of the enhanced SAWS situation display began at GNV AFSS during the week of August 4th and will continue for approximately 4-6 weeks. The evaluation will determine if SAWS is a suitable replacement in air traffic operations for the F-420 wind indicator, altimeter, and/or the ASOS. The evaluation calls for a comparison of SAWS with either the F420 wind indicator or ASOS. In the case of GNV it was the ASOS. The evaluation team observed controllers continuing to use ASOS for airport advisories rather than the SAWS. When controllers were asked why they continued to use ASOS instead of SAWS for airport advisories they answered that it was mandatory procedure to use the ASOS. The evaluation team quickly pointed out to the GNV ATM that FAA7110.3 allowed a facility manager to designate which available wind source would be used for operational purposes. The ATM talked to the NAATS FacRep and they agreed on a procedural change that allowed for use of the SAWS for airport advisories and the evaluation continued. Preliminary indications from the field have been very positive regarding the utility and readability of the enhanced SAWS display. Juneau Airport Wind System (JAWS) An independent assessment of the overall JAWS plan is expected in September. Meanwhile, an interim report was issued which indicated, "wind profilers are considered to be an integral part of the JAWS alert system". The Doppler wind profilers were previously envisioned as part of the system but earlier this year the JAWS team collectively decided to save time and money by eliminating them. The interim report contained the following overview of JAWS funding FY97-FY03:
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) The WARP program is winding down due to the successful completion of all 21 WARP deployments in July. The original WARP contract with the Harris Corp. will expire soon and there is much uncertainty about how the program will continue in the future. The plans for a follow-on to WARP that would provide for future up-grades and give the Agency proprietary rights to it�s software was to be known as the Global Weather Information System (GWIS). GWIS sounded too much like a completely new program to the powers to be, so the idea may be scrapped. The latest plan being floated seems to be to negotiate a service life extension program (SLEP) possibly with Harris. Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) Boston and Denver are scheduled to receive ITWS during 2004. The deployment of up to 34 more units is planned through 2010. 31 sites across the Country have an ITWS installed. A new Houston TRACON and Dulles Tower are being planned and it is expected that they will require a "new" ITWS. Numerous entities are actively working to become external users of ITWS. They include Houston Port Authority, Chicago Port Authority, and several major airlines. New York Port Authority has been an external user of ITWS for a while. The need to display hazards associated with convective activity in a Control Tower or an Approach Control Facility is obvious. External users apparently consider ITWS advantageous to their operations also. Flight Service Stations have a similar need for that information and ITWS displays will eventually be provided. Technology is available now for this low cost solution. ITWS will not become a reality in Flight Service however, until Management establishes a requirement for it. ATX Report Beth Gerrits, ATX Liaison -- [email protected] EAS September 8, 2003, the newest Employee Attitude Survey (EAS) will be mailed to your facility. Before you toss it in the trash please consider the following: This is your chance as an individual to let management and the administrator know what you think about how they are running this agency and how they treat you as an employee! The survey has a section on pay satisfaction. Results will only be issued for workgroups of 8 or more. If you have a problem with the demographic information because you feel you may be identified as an individual within the work group results you do not need to include that information. However if you do not include data in this area you will not be included in the results compiled for those demographics. There are 10 surveys being used for the different lines of business (LOB) and the UPC on the survey is just for identification of which survey you are filling out. There is no means or intent to track individual replies. Some FSDPS facilities have been included in their parent facility and others have a separate listing. We would like all FSDPS replies identified separately. To do that you can specify your facility in the "other" category if the only option is inclusion in the parent facility. For those of you who still feel it is not worth your time or effort to fill out this survey or those who might be interested here is a little background on the EAS. This survey has been administered eight times since 1984. In 1988, 90, 93, and 95 only a 15% sampling of employees was taken. In 1984, 86, 97, and 2000 all employees were surveyed, as they will be this year. Results have been positive in recent years for job satisfaction, commitment, training, pay satisfaction, supervisor, and MWE success. They have been more critical for performance management, communications, rewards, and coaching. Most results have been consistent through the 1990�s with one exception of a consistent drop in perceived sexual harassment since 1995. The EAS results drove corporate actions to create the VOICE, the Performance Management System (PMS), and the Accountability Board. The EAS trends help evaluate progress on relevant issues e.g., performance expectations clarity. It provides metrics for the FAA Strategic Plan and MWE as well as human factors research relating survey results to safety issues, i.e. CAMI. The Management Board Briefing for the results of the survey is scheduled for January �04. Reports to the various Lines of Business (LOB) will be distributed over the following two months. Familiarization Flight Program There have been some articles in various industry magazines and newsletters about a TSA test program for the familiarization flight program. The FAA is considering participation in this test but the final decision has not yet been made. Linda Schuessler AAT-2 has indicated that we may be able to participate by the end of September. Do not make plans based on this estimate. You will receive official notification that the FAA is included in the test. When the FAA chooses to participate, all the options will be treated equally, for those who are concerned about FSS inclusion in the test. This test is for the TSA to check on the security process and issues involved in the program and anyone not following the procedures in effect will seriously jeopardize future participation in the program for everyone. Staffing Here�s a few numbers for those who are interested. For FY03 October 1, 2002 through mid August 2003 there have been 133 attrition losses. Gains this year include 40 new hires and 20 transfers into FSS from the other options. The grand total of all FSS employees as of July 31, 2003 is 2,770 down from 2,786 in June. Negotiations for the assignment of new hires for FY04 are continuing. The Academy can train 98 new hires in FY04 however the severe financial problems of the FAA may restrict hiring next year as well. The decision has not yet been made to hire or not to hire. End of Year Spending Money that has been held back for the proverbial rainy day becomes available at the end of the fiscal year. Usually the facility managers are given 24-48 hours to spend a given amount of money. It may be large or small and no one knows how much until the last minute. You may have some input into how that money is spent if you plan. Develop a wish list of equipment that the facility needs and coordinate with your manager to prioritize that list based on needs. Check through the government catalogs and attach a value to the items on your list. That way when the call comes to spend it won�t go to impulse buying that often leads to Palm Pilots and other toys that end up in managers� offices while facility needs are not considered. There are several ways to do this depending on the FacRep and manager working relationship. The FacRep can submit a list for consideration or you can work together to develop that list and prioritize it or anywhere in between. At least you can try for some input before the next round of laptops and palms appear. The end of the fiscal year is September 30. AISR The contract for AIS runs out at the end of September and will be replaced by AISR. The hardware has been replaced at your facilities within the last year and the AIS program is running on it now. The change to the AISR software will involve a phone call to install the software. The other change will be to the NOTAMs program available with the AIS. AISR has combined the best of the ENL and NOTAMs 2000 programs as a part of the AISR. This will be available at all the facilities and is a FAA approved program. For those facilities not currently using either of these programs they will now be available to you. For those facilities that are currently using either ENL or NOTAMs 2000 the changes should be minimal and an operation manual will be supplied to your facility to review for those changes. There will be a MOU concerning the change to AISR available before the change is made. SUA/ISE The MOU for the installation of these programs and equipment is currently being developed. The ATP liaison will keep you informed on the progress of the project. CATTS Here�s a reminder for all the FacReps out there. You are authorized access to the CATTS program in a read only capacity. The CATTS program is the national database for the traffic count. There is a MOU for CATTS that reads in part,
There is a tutorial available with the program to teach you how to operate it. You may request the access through your facility manager. Moving to the Tower/Enroute Option -- There have been some congressional inquiries arriving at ATX due to the unsuccessful attempt of people to change options. For those who are considering changing to one of the other options as a way of dealing with the uncertainties associated with the A-76 I have been promised an article from FAA Human Relations on how to make this change. It should include who is eligible to make the change and how to proceed if that is your choice. It will be available for next month�s newsletter. FSOSC Report Kevin Carl and Jim Mehan, FSOSC Liaisons Differences Between Lat/Long and FRD (Fix/Radial/Distance) To see why there may be problems with graphics (racetrack or pill shaped graphics that have been defined as a radius about a point) we must first have a small discussion about a VOR�s Magnetic Variation (magvar) vs. Station Declination. The radial from a VOR that says it is 360 degrees, typically does not point to magnetic north. It did 30 or so years ago when the VOR was first installed, but changes in global magvar plus other factors cause it to drift over time. This error can sometimes be as much as 5 degrees. Thus, VORs have a local magvar and declination value that must be taken into consideration when plotting fixes. Jeppesen has done its homework (it�s not surprising since they are in business to make money and if they sell a shoddy product, they won�t make much money) and have taken both of the aforementioned factors, among others, into account in their FliteStar program. As one example, the PIH VOR has a Station Declination of 17.0 degrees, but a local magvar of 14.2 degrees E -- this is almost a 3-degree error. Thus the direction of the 360-degree radial is really a true heading of 17 degrees, while the actual magnetic north is at a true heading of 14.2 degrees. This means if the proper adjustments are not made the distances between the Lat/Long and the FRD can become greater as you travel away from the VOR. During a discussion several weeks ago we found out that some of the data (station declination) being used by one organization in creating the TFR areas is five years old (we were also told that corrective action was being taken). When the error is more than one half mile, we have chosen to err on the side of safety and include both areas in the defined TFR and then send an error report to Peter Quinn who then forwards it to the appropriate person. Regardless of who is at fault, this clearly illustrates a vital need for standardization among the many organizations that are defining these TFRs. The FAA should be taking the lead in defining the standardization. PROXY Problems July and August were rife with proxy server problems to say the least, but they were not server problems as such. We, at the FSOSC, were able to create and publish TFRs, which gave indications to the guys with five hundred pound brains over at Jeppesen that the problem was not at their end but with the FAA (more on that later). Sadly, we (Kevin and Jim) are not, for lack of a better word, Techies. What we have learned over the past several weeks is that the proxy address for the Internet Explorer or Netscape (whichever you are using) must be the same as the proxy server address in the FliteStar Program. This can only be accomplished by the person inside or outside of your facility who has sufficient "rights" to do so. One of the Technical Specialists with Jeppesen is trying to contact the right party within the FAA to get additional information on our proxy outages. To date, there has been only one Jeppesen server outage, and that was back in June. The others that are being experienced are on the local level. Check with your LAN Administrator or the SMO if there are problems with getting the TFR graphics. The "proxy" problem was forwarded to Robert Meek by Peter Quinn, and the following explanation was given: Because DNS (directory name service) sometimes has outages within the FAA, users may want to utilize "raw" IP addresses for the different proxy servers, in their browser (Netscape or Internet Explorer). Some of the proxy server addresses are shown below:
If internet access isn�t working at one of the proxy locations above, due to one of the DNS servers, proxy servers, or internet access points at a location above being down, the user can change their route to the internet by changing the proxy server address in their browser. This will change the gateway being used to reach the Internet. To change the proxy server using Netscape, select edit, preferences, advanced (double click), proxies, select manual proxy configuration, view, then type in a proxy server address (example: 204.108.10.10) for http, security, ftp, etc. Click OK. To change the proxy server using Internet Explorer, select tools, internet options, connections, LAN settings, check proxy server, advanced, then type in a proxy server address above for http, security, ftp, etc. or for all. Click OK. If an Internet gateway goes down, users may want to change to an alternate. Peter Quinn sent this information to each Regional Office, and it was expected that each RO would forward it to each AFSS/FSS LAN Administrator under their jurisdiction. We don�t know if the word has gotten out to everyone because this office is still receiving calls from field facilities and we are, in turn, faxing them the above information. Jeppesen has given us two proxy settings that seem to work for the majority of FSSs: "amcproxy.faa.gov:8080" and "awaproxy.faa.gov:8080". This will become a moot point, or so we are told, once the FAA takes over as the server for the FliteStar Program and all of this is done over the Mil OPS line. Dare we sacy we won�t have any more problems? Nah! Let�s wait and see what happens. The Love San Virus The FSOSC was basically inoperative from August 14-18 while our computers were quite ill with the "Love San Virus". The computer guys here at headquarters were kept busy getting us back on line. We received a note from an industrious employee in the southern region advising that he downloaded and ran McAfee�s Stinger Program. It cleaned the "love san" virus and now both TODS computers are updating. Thanks Mark. TODS Automation The programmers here in HQ are working on an automation program of sorts. To get a preview of what they are working on, visit the following URL: http://172.27.173.102/tfr/jsp/tfrmap.jsp. Field Suggestion Lisa L. Rounsavell, Support Specialist, DEN AFSS asked if there was any way we could add a small status bar that shows when TODS was last modified. We were able to come up a simple solution to her request by adding a non-graphic item to the graphic list that shows the date and time of the last TFR update. We have received positive feedback on this item.
Terri Michel, NAATS Representative, [email protected] APTAC�s 112th meeting was held the week of July28th, 2003. The meeting was in Appleton, Wisconsin. There were seventeen Areas of Concern (AOC) discussed during this meeting. Action complete: 1. Discrete Frequency for ARFF Communications
2. Gate Hold - AIM, AIP 3. Consolidating Positions During Low Visibility - 7210.3 4. Taxi Instructions - 7110.65 5. Pilot Deviation Notification - 7110.65, 8020.11 6. FARs/Aim Cleanup - AIM, AIP 7. FAR/AIM Conflict - AIM, AIP 8. AIM Cleanup -AIM New AOC: 9. Clarification of "Direct" Clearance Deferred until October 2003 meeting: 10. 250KT Speed Exemption Test 11. NOTAM Distribution (L NOTAMs) 12. Runway Incursions by Taxiing Aircraft 13. Entry and Dissemination of PIREPs 14. Instrument Approach Clearances to other than IAF 15. Clarification of Intent of "Radar Required" Notes of IAPs 16. ICAO Phraseology Change to PANS - ATM 17. Assignment of Code 7700 for Weather Avoidance We received a briefing on the Wide Are Augmentation System. The two major advantages seem to be: 1. allowing navigation down to MOCAs and 2. non-reliance on ground-based NAVAIDs. The system should be fully operational in 2006 including 25 stations, 2 geo satellites and a plan for 2 more in the future. Current cost for receivers is $8,000 - $12,000 but prices are expected to decrease to about $4,000 in the near future. Many ground-based NAVAIDs will be decommissioned once the system is fully operational, but about 400 will be maintained for backup purposes. Phil Boyer has the first privately owned receiver. It has function for ADF, VOR, ILS, Communication and a color moving situation display. The Controller-in-Charge of operations for AirVenture 100 in Oshkosh briefed the group on procedures for communications, arrivals, parking and departures. The EAA provided us with passes to the air show. The next meeting is scheduled for October in Washington, D.C. Please contact me with questions or concerns at: [email protected].
"If you are interested in serving as a national NAATS
representative on either liaison details or workgroups please send your
resume to NAATS HQ. Details are in Washington, DC at FAA HQ and are for one
year. Workgroups meet as necessary and require varying degrees of travel. It
would be helpful if you would list your area(s) of interest in your resume,
e.g., automation/equipment, operations/personnel, etc." Gregory McGann, RDU AFSS WE�VE UPPED OUR STANDARDS -- UP YOURS! "Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with," the Mock Turtle replied, "and the different branches of Arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision." ~ Lewis Carroll OE/OD�s are the hot topic for management right now, at least in the Southern Region. Unfortunately, like the poor Mock Turtle, management is dealing with things they can only barely comprehend. Distraction" is the buzzword they�ve focused on to save us from further errors, but like many failed third-world dictators they think that their wishes can bend reality to their whim. Distractions, in a general sense, are a significant detriment to workplace productivity. A study found that the number one factor that employees believed would increase job performance was the ability to concentrate without noise and other distractions. (Steelcase / Louis Harris (1978) - "National Study of Office Environments.") Another study identified noise reduction as the primary ongoing opportunity for increased workplace productivity and estimated an average 26% increase in productivity if noise problems were eliminated. (BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association (1988).) Noise was the number one complaint of workers in another study and 70% said they would be more productive if there were fewer noise distractions. (ASID / Yankelovich (1995) - Study of 1,000 Office Workers.) Clearly, there are gains to be made from reducing noise, but what kind of noise are we talking about? The primary sources of noise in many studies were conversations and ringing telephones. (Sundstrom,Town, Rice Osborne, Brill (1994) - "Environment and Behavior.") Just as clearly, these are two things we can do little about, given the nature of our job. As another Steelcase report said, "A decade�s worth of downsizing and real estate cuts, coupled with a desire to improve adjacencies by putting entire groups together, has led to greater densities of people and equipment on floors. In any given work area there are likely to be more people talking and laughing, more telephones ringing, more keyboards clacking, and more printers whirring. With each new wave of technological tools -- speakerphones, pagers, and desktop videoconferencing, to name a few -- comes another array of sounds. In addition, an estimated 75 percent of today�s office workers are knowledge workers. These professionals consume, process, analyze, and interpret increasingly complex information, then turn that information into new forms. At any given moment, some of these people must work uninterrupted while others must interact." (1997 Steelcase Workplace.) Conversation and ringing telephones. What can we do about them, and are they even a problem? The opinion in my facility is that conversation is not a problem. The open architecture of the room and the nature of our interaction with pilots do increase the level of conversational distraction but two things work in our favor. First, this has been part of our job since day one, and we are used to it. Second, those facilities with new consoles have privacy dividers between the positions, helping to reduce overall noise and give some privacy during a call. Ringing telephones and related noise are another matter. There are several things that we all agree are major distractions in my facility. Our NAVAID monitor panel cannot be silenced or muted, only reset, so that sometimes the alarm goes off every few seconds, over and over again. With our new console configuration we are unable to mute ELT�s, so sometimes we have to listen to them for hours at a time. The ring on the ICSS is far too loud and we can�t turn it down. The phones ring every two seconds instead of the industry standard six seconds. The security videophone is located between IF and FD, and also rings far too loudly. All of these are distracting and are the subject of daily complaints. You would think that with such an emphasis on reducing distractions that management would be receptive to the idea of fixing these problems. On the contrary, we are told that it is the journeyman who is the cause of the problem, and it is the journeyman who will be made to toe the line. The PowerPoint presentation given to managers on performance management has this to say: "Attempting to performance manage in a control environment that is loose is wasted effort. In fact disciplining the environment (music level, unnecessary conversation, posture, tours, reading materials) usually will have a positive impact on performance by itself." There is no mention made anywhere in the presentation about dealing with things that the journeyman believes are distracting. Management believes that "on the spot corrections" of your posture will do more to improve performance than silencing an ELT that has been going off for an hour. Other studies have shown that not all distractions are detrimental. "The social aspects of work, such as impromptu discussions around the water cooler, are missed by telecommuters. While such activities may seem counter-productive, when done in moderation, they significantly improve productivity. Occasional distractions are actually quite beneficial. Informal discussions about non-work matters are common in most workplaces. These discussions may not directly contribute to productivity, but they have the potential to enhance productivity indirectly by strengthening relationships between employees." (Anderson, University of Va., A Study in Telecommuting, 1999.) From yet another study: "Control over surroundings and privacy, access to the support of others, and exposure to "positive distractions" such as natural scenes or elements are key to a wellness-promoting environment. Complete lack of distractions is not ideal however, because visual and acoustic isolation tends to make people dwell excessively on their fears and problems." (Frankowski Jones, Beth. July/August 1996. Environments That Support Healing.) Management wants to remove everything that they consider a distraction, notwithstanding their actual influence on the environment. They would prefer us all to sit facing our positions, eyes front, in silence, although a study at the University of Chicago concludes: "Worker isolation inevitably leads to procrastination and boredom, and this could lead to professional and personal problems." (Carey, Worker Isolation in Open Environments, 1998.) Not only does this approach actually make the problem worse, it also increases job dissatisfaction. Contrary to what the FAA thinks, job satisfaction is no small thing. "The physical workplace ranks 2nd behind compensation and is tied with benefits on reasons why people accept or leave jobs. This is crucial for management to understand as it usually takes one and one-half of a knowledge-worker�s annual salary to replace him or her." (ASID and L.C. Williams & Associates - (2000 ) Impact of Office Design on Recruiting and Retaining Employees.) Job satisfaction has to be at an all time low between our 0.0% pay raise and the imminent demise of our jobs through A-76, yet management seems determined to make it even worse. Conversation is bad, so it will be eliminated. This leads to boredom, which is bad, and leads to even more extraneous conversation. Things that keep people quiet without boredom, such as reading material, computers, etc. are also bad, so they are being banned. The result is even more boredom, conversation and noise. In the private sector, where managers are actually responsible for the productivity of their employees, we find much more compliant attitudes. "The survey suggests companies should accept some personal use of the Internet at work as not only inevitable, but as positive to the organization," said Roland Rust, director of the Center for e-Service at the Robert H. Smith School of Business. "Totally segregating work from personal activities might result in a net decline in work performed, not to mention lower workplace morale. Businesses often clamp down on personal use of the Internet at work, citing concerns about productivity, but this study indicates workers more than make up for it through higher workplace satisfaction." Perhaps some of our managers should have attended business school instead of barber college. The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the authors and in no way reflects the position of the Union or its elected or appointed officials or liaisons. THE PROS AND CONS OF PAY RATIFICATION Vote No on Contract Ratification Roger D. Lingenfelter, CPR AFSS I can�t be bought for $600. ($1000 minus taxes, shipping and handling) Wally�s rationalization, they�re going to put us in pay banding anyway, so let�s vote "Hurray"! Not! Let them (FAA) do it, but not with our blessing. If we vote for the contract, "they" will always say, "Hey, you guys voted for it." Not me. A couple nameless facility scabs were rationalizing how this new contract would benefit them, particularly the SCI. The FAA takes care of them. They don�t need NAATS. Lets keep working without a contract and see if the good ole FAA "gives" them their CIC and OJTI pay. Speaking of which, if our great benefactor does not pay extra for CIC (spelled supervisor) responsibilities and OJTI, let�s quit doing them. CIC is not a certified position. Not part of our job description. OJTI, well let them figure out how to train the new guys. I have trained dozens on my 28 years. I have just refused my first OJTI assignment. Quit doing collateral duties. NATCA got a big pay boost for agreeing to do those jobs. We have been doing the same jobs for nothing for years. I have more training courses than I can count, TA, QA, etc. I no longer "volunteer" to do those jobs. Wally rationalized that with a contract signed, we can renegotiate our pay in two years through A76. Where has he been the past decade? The FAA has not negotiated in good faith with NAATS in 10 years. Where�s the 5% they promised? Where�s the retroactive back to �99 pay raise and CIC, OJTI, ATRA? If we sign, we agree to throw those promises away. We may never get them, but by us not agreeing, their lies never go away. The arbitrator saw that. Maybe someday someone else will too! Congress gave the FAA the authority and responsibility to treat us fairly. We sign this contract; we are agreeing that they are. I�m eligible to retire. So my best self interest would be to take the $600 Christmas bonus and fade into the sunset. I have just a bit more self respect than that. I pray that you do to. I will not sign! - - - - - - - - - - - SOMETIMES PRIDE IS FATAL Elinormarie L. Morrissy, Editor Let�s take a break from all the brave rhetoric about proudly not giving in the FAA and look at the reality of the situation. We�re going into Core Comp with or without the vote an affirmative vote from us on pay. Administrator Blakey is determined that we should have no choice in this matter. However we do have a choice to make whether we go in with the 4.1% ATRA, 10 % CIC and OJTI differentials, FERS Sick Leave Buyback, Educational Reimbursement and the Reopener Clause or without them. Some will say CIC and OJTI pay are part of the Work Rules we already ratified and that the FAA is obligated to implement them. If this is true how come, despite the fact we ratified the Work Rules nearly a year ago, no one is getting the CIC or OJTI pay from those new Work Rules? I�m concerned that should we fail to ratify this pay agreement, we will be handing the FAA a very convenient excuse not to implement our new Work Rules, including those differentials. They can claim, as they have been doing all along, that they�re really part of the pay agreement and since we didn�t ratify it, they can simply continue with the status quo. Knowing the FAA�s lack commitment to the principles of fairness and good faith bargaining with regards to Flight Service, does it take a lot to see the FAA sticking it to us yet again? Then there�s the Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965. Briefly, this law states that a bargaining unit that is contracted out when there is a negotiated pay rate in effect must be paid the median rate of that negotiated agreement, i.e. union contract. If we fail to ratify the pay agreement and allow Marion Blakey to go to Congress with what she wants to give us, we jeopardize our rights under the SCA. Should A-76 continue through to the contracting stage, this could mean the difference between getting a fair wage for our knowledge and experience instead of a lousy $10.00 per hour. We -- the NAATS membership -- voted to stay the course in pursuit of parity with NATCA brothers and sisters, rather than accept the original offer of a 5.5% raise. Sadly, we gambled and lost. Despite our high hopes and all the effort we exerted, there was never any guarantee that we would win. On the other hand, this is the first contract where we�ve ever been allowed to negotiate pay. If we can beat A-76, there will be other opportunities to even the score. A-76 is the most critical issue we face right now. We�ve got to move on with this pay issue so we can concentrate our efforts on getting the A-76 study killed and buried once and for all. It�s time to look at our pay situation through the prism of enlightened self interest. We should take what we can get for now -- the ATRA roll-in, CIC & OJTI pay, FERS Sick Leave buy back, education reimbursement, the reopener and $600 or so extra dollars after taxes-- and focus all our energies on defeating A-76. It�s even more important now that folks in Congress are finally starting to get our message. We need to keep hammering the message home with them that privatization of any part of our ATC system is not only unsafe, but poses a threat to our national security. Some of you might remember "The Charge of the Light Brigade" from high school literature. The poem is about 600 British troops in the Crimea who, upon finding themselves faced by overwhelming opposition, decided to charge anyway. They got massacred. I see continuing to fight this pay issue, when we face a much bigger threat, in the same light. So ask yourself, are you willing to go out in a blaze of glorious pride fighting a hopeless cause or are you willing to cede the field now in order to live on to fight -- and possibly win -- another day?
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg Press Release WASHINGTON, D.C. - During a news conference this morning, United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) declared the FAA Reauthorization Conference Report dead on arrival as a result of the Bush Administration�s insistence that it include language allowing for the privatization of the nation�s Air Traffic Control System. Senator Jay Rockefeller joined Lautenberg at today�s event. "This bill the Bush Administration wants passed represents a threat to the safety of the traveling public that both bodies of Congress voted to outlaw," said Senator Lautenberg. "The White House is pushing their malformed �privatization/contracting out� agenda so far that they would nickel and dime our safety and security. This is safety and security on the cheap." Senator Lautenberg and Senator Rockefeller, the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee�s Aviation Subcommittee, offered legislation today to extend funding for important aviation programs that would otherwise lapse on September 30. Proponents of the flawed conference report tried to bully Congress into passing it by claiming that failure to do so would hold up funding for airport construction projects all over the country. This bill would also address immediate safety and security needs including a prohibition on privatization of the nation�s air traffic control system and restriction on implementing CAPPS II, the updated computer system that uses personal data to profile air travelers for security purposes. On September 11th, the nation�s air traffic control system worked flawlessly to guide some 5,000 aircraft to safety. And again, during the blackouts last month, the air traffic control system remained on-line to guide aircraft safely around the 6 major airports shut down due to the blackout. It was also available for national defense purposes -- to track and communicate with aircraft during times of widespread turmoil, noted Lautenberg. "If we�ve learned one thing from September 11th, it�s that people rely on government to perform important safety and security functions," Senator Lautenberg said. "If the public demanded that the baggage screeners who check luggage become federalized, why in the world would the public tolerate privatizing the system? This is one of those vital government functions too important to allow privateers to perform and each body of Congress said so."
July 15-16, 2003 9:00 am -- Call to Order
A-76
Air Shows
By Tanya N. Ballard, GoveExec.com, September 16, 2003 Health insurance premiums for federal employees will increase by an average of 10.6 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced Tuesday. Government workers with self-only insurance coverage will pay an average of $5.01 more per pay period, or $130.26 annually. Workers with family coverage will pay an average of $11.95 more per pay period, or $310.70 annually. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) provides health care coverage for 8.3 million federal employees, retirees and their families. The premium hike for 2004 is the fourth consecutive annual increase above 10 percent, for the FEHBP, but OPM Director Kay Coles James said the increase is one of the lowest in the country. According to a December 2002 General Accounting Office report (03-236), FEHBP premiums increased an average of 6 percent a year from 1991 to 2002, a rate similar to those of other large health plans. "Even with nationwide reports citing health insurance premium increases ranging as high as 18 percent, OPM has been able to keep its average premium increase at 10.6 percent, making many choices in the consumer and market-driven FEHB [program] among the most reasonably priced in the nation," James said. "I believe the FEHB program is a model of efficiency and effectiveness." OPM said increased costs for prescription drugs, greater use of medical services and an aging workforce led to the double-digit increase. Federal employees and retirees can change their health insurance plans during open season, which runs from Nov. 10 to Dec. 8. The number of health plans will rise to 205, with 17 new insurance plans joining the FEHBP in 2004. However, many plans have changed their benefits or premiums for 2004, leading some union and congressional leaders to renew the call for increasing the government�s contribution to federal employees� health insurance premiums. "Other large employers in the public and private sector contribute between 85 and 100 percent of the premiums for their employees," said American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage. "Yet, because of the current formula used to calculate federal employees� costs, the federal government pays only 70 percent of health care premiums." House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., introduced legislation (H.R. 577) in February that would raise the government�s contribution to federal employee insurance premiums. "If we expect the federal government to compete with the private sector for skilled workers, it is time we give serious consideration to raising the government's contribution level and provide employees with a benefit most have asked for -- dental insurance," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, following OPM�s announcement. Aetna and Humana are introducing new insurance options in 2004. Similar to the American Postal Workers Union insurance plan first offered this year, enrollees will get a credit to spend on medical services before they have to make any out-of-pocket payments. This summer OPM began offering flexible spending accounts to federal employees, and more than 30,000 government workers signed up for the benefit. Participants can use money in the accounts to pay for health services not covered by standard insurance, such as certain dental and vision services. On Tuesday, OPM officials said they anticipate enrollment numbers in the program to jump during open season. OPM will post the 2004 premium rates on its Web site at: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.asp. Brought to you by FedWeek.com Veto Fight Could Be Ahead on Key Bill The House in passing an appropriations bill that contains a 4.1 percent federal raise has set up a potential veto confrontation with the White House, which objects not only to the raise figure but also to language added in House floor voting regarding contracting-out. The House adopted an amendment to the Transportation-Treasury bill (HR-2989) to bar the government from using the revised contracting procedures outlined in revisions published several months ago to Circular A-76, the contracting-out guidance. The vote, which would allow contracting-out studies to continue but only under the old rules, is the latest shot in a running battle between the administration and employee organizations and certain members of Congress over not only those specific rules -- which seek to speed up the process and which change some of the ground rules -- but also over the administration's general emphasis on considering jobs for private sector performance. Attention now turns to the Senate, which has drafted a counterpart bill (S-1589) that also specifies a 4.1 percent raise but which contains no counterpart language on contracting-out. Contracting Provisions Draws Threat In a policy statement regarding the House bill, the administration threatened to veto the Transportation-Treasury bill if it limits the White House�s "competitive sourcing" initiative to consider federal jobs for private sector performance. In addition to the amendment regarding the revised A-76, the bill contains language requiring greater agency reporting on their contracting-out activities -- during floor voting the House rejected an amendment that would have imposed even greater restrictions. Also, specific restrictions on contracting-out at certain agencies are contained in other appropriations bills. The administration statement said that "now is the wrong time to short-circuit implementation of this principle, especially since numerous agencies are starting to make real progress in this area. Prohibiting funding for public-private competitions is akin to mandating a monopoly regardless of the impact on services to citizens and the added costs to taxpayers." Administration Reiterates Opposition on Raise Meanwhile, the White House reiterated its proposal, contained in both its original budget released in February and in an "alternative" pay plan released in August, for a 2 percent 2004 federal raise. A 4.1 percent raise, it said, "exceeds the President�s request by $2.1 billion, provides a percentage increase that exceeds inflation, the statutory base pay increase, and even exceeds the average increase in private sector pay, measured by the Employment Cost Index." The higher raise "does not address any particular issue related to federal employee turnover" and "would not allow the federal government to target pay raises to attract employees with critical skills." Different Standards for Comparison The administration�s statement regarding the federal pay raise reflects a shift from the standards that the 1990 federal pay law -- which still officially governs federal pay-setting -- laid out to determine annual raises. In addition, the administration statement cited a recent Office of Personnel Management survey showing that most employees are satisfied with their pay and pointed out that the federal "quit rate" -- the rate at which federal employees leave the government voluntarily -- is at what it termed an all-time low of 1.7 percent, which it said is "well below the average quit rate in private enterprise." That law created a system of across-the-board raises based on an ECI measure of private sector wage growth, plus locality pay based on local pay gaps -- not inflation, employee satisfaction or quit rates. Similarly, the law does not mention parity with raises for uniformed military personnel, which congressional sponsors of the 4.1 percent figure use as the basis for boosting the raise to that amount. Pay-for-Performance Issues Also Raised In addition, the White House has objected to a provision in the House bill that would guarantee employees of the Defense and Homeland Security departments the full raise. That "would limit flexibility as DHS and DoD attempt to design a personnel and pay system that best meets their need," the administration said. That was the intent of sponsors of the language, who don't want pay-for-performance systems under consideration for those agencies to be funded at the cost of reducing general increases. The White House also said it was "extremely disappointed" that the measure provides only $2.5 million, rather than the $500 million it requested, to create a new fund to reward high-performing employees. The Senate bill similarly would require that DHS and DoD employees get the full amount, but contains no provision for a performance fund. Senate Bill Continues Several Policies The Senate version of the Transportation-Treasury bill, like the House-passed bill, continues several long-standing provisions of similar bills. These include: generally requiring Federal Employees Health Benefits program carriers to pay for prescription contraceptive coverage; barring "lifestyle" and other training not directly related to the performance of official duties; barring the release of employee names and home addresses to unions, which could use them for recruiting purposes. The Senate bill also contains provisions designed to crack down on employees who misuse official purchase and travel charge cards, including requiring agencies to take disciplinary action such as revoking the employee�s security clearance. FEHB Rates Announcement Pending
The Office of Personnel Management likely will soon announce
new coverage and rates under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
for calendar year 2004, with another significant increase in rates widely
expected. OPM has been negotiating through the summer with carriers for
their 2004 offering, trying to keep coverage comprehensive while
counteracting the upward pressure on premiums from increased prescription
drug costs and usage and from the overall aging of the FEHB population. In
recent years, plans have been continuing to emphasize care management and
other cost-containment measures while also shifting some overall costs from
premiums to out-of-pocket expenses such as co-payments and deductibles. The
open season for selecting 2004 plan year coverage will run November
10-December 8. OPM has been encouraging plans to promote generic drug programs, use of less costly brand-name drugs, mail-order drug programs, and tiered co-payment systems. Even with those efforts, average premiums have risen at or near the double digit range for five straight years -- the play year 2003 average increase was 11.1 percent -- and earlier this year OPM warned that "health care consultants are again predicting significant health care cost increases next year." Faced with such increases, enrollees in recent years have been practicing a form of cost containment themselves, by switching to health maintenance organizations and other plans that feature managed care such as lower costs for using in-network providers. Without such switching, the overall average premium increase would be several percentage points higher. We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing. -- Mother Teresa ALASKA REGION
CENTRAL REGION
EASTERN REGION
GREAT LAKES REGION LANSING AFSS NEWS Kile Pitts, FacRep and Craig Marcus, Alternate FacRep We�re 80% Union Membership Shifted on a Holiday? A few people had commented that their shift was changed slightly on Thanksgiving and other holidays, and they hadn�t taken leave for that day because their assigned shift was just right for whatever their family had planned. Now, after being shifted around, they we questioning why we allowed management to manipulate our shifts on holidays. Here is clarification on this issue. The Lansing AFSS Annual Leave and Prime Time MOU�s were negotiated to provide for the maximum number of people off on leave at any given time. If we restricted management from making changes to accommodate requests for leave, the number of requests approved would be reduced.
So, if you are assigned a shift on Thanksgiving, and you really want to be one of the 26 people eating turkey and cranberry sauce at your house that afternoon, approved annual leave, even just an hour, on the Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday of that week would protect you from any change on Thanksgiving. OASIS is REALLY Coming! Feb �04 is when LAN is scheduled for installation. From the Initial Site Survey meeting held here in late August, I have the impression that these are now going smoothly, and staying on schedule. And many thanks to the entire BOD, but especially Jack O�Connell, and the OASIS Human Factors Team for their work on the revised OASIS deployment waterfall. The plan is to put Oasis behind all the functional positions, in front of the M1FC screens that we don�t use, and 6 in the conference room to train on. They said training takes up to 90 days and then POOF! We�ve arrived! Keeping COOL ! The FAA and our Airport Authority have fiddle farted around on getting our HVAC system replaced for so long that we entered the summer cooling season with nothing beside large industrial fans scattered around our ops floor. Then, under threat of us going ATC ZERO during extreme heat conditions, they finally agreed that to temporarily keep the facility cool, the FAA would pay to bring in a portable A/C unit. The word is that this is costing about $4000 a month. Money for this kind of thing, money for A-76, but they�ll fight us forever before paying OJTI or CIC premiums... PWS Gathering at LAN AFSS The PWS team met here 2 months ago, and Wally Pike was also invited to visit. He was able to meet many of our members, and we held a meeting that evening at a local Pizza Restaurant. Jack O�Connell was kind enough to buy the pizzas and took a collection for the PAC fund from those in attendance. With all the FacReps and/or designees in for the meeting from other Great Lakes FSSs we had a pretty good turnout. A-76 Information Until Congress returns and begins to discuss the FAA Reauthorization bill, we won�t know where we stand. Any protections against contracting we did have in earlier versions were removed from the conference bill just as Congress was leaving for the summer recess. I would just like to make the point that NAATS is pretty much the sole source of A-76 info for the controllers. The FAA has performed miserably in their responsibility to keep the workforce informed. NEW ENGLAND REGION Kurt Comisky, Director and Tom Halligan, Coordinator Significant Changes There is much speculation and guessing on the process and the outcome of the A-76 process. If you recall from the Grant-Thornton road show last year, the fundamental result of the A-76 process is a changed organization. The way this change is measured is by the amount of reduction in the agency�s bottom line. There is a universal presumption, by those conducting the study that the A-76 process will result in a savings of 30%-35% for the FAA. Applying this presumption to our bargaining unit, the outcome of the A-76 process will result in less than 61 Flight Service Stations. Realizing the outcome of the A-76 process will result in significant change for almost all, if not all of us, the intent of this article is to begin to address this change to all of our lives. In the A-76 process, the MEO will compete just like any vendor. It is anticipated that the agency will announce the result of the competition around Christmas of next year, the decision date. I suspect the MEO and each vendor will develop their own transition plan. It would also be logical for the FAA to develop a transition plan from the current state to the point where the MEO or another vendor assumes the duties. A significant part of the FAA transition plan should include the mitigation of the adverse impact of the effected employees. I have no knowledge of any agency effort in the development of the transition plan. With the decision date about 15 months away, all of us, collectively and individually need to realistically look at the situation before us. The outcome of the A-76 process is quite uncertain. The PWS will determine what functions, if any, are inherently governmental, what services will be subject to competition, what services are unnecessary, what standards the vendor/MEO must meet. It is unknown whether the contract will be a "per service" or "per hour of service provided." I will save the speculation for others; it is prudent to approach the situation before us as if an outside vendor will be selected by the agency next Christmas. This article is a result of the recent Quarterly meeting at the Regional Office and several other meetings with the Regional folks. In particular, I want to thank Susan Nason from Human Resources (HR), who provided the basis of this article. Although there may be some additional benefits negotiated at the National level, our regional effort will pertain to the policies, procedures, rights and benefits that are in effect at this time. If there are no functions retained by the agency, then our positions will have been, for practical purposes, eliminated. Since Personnel Reform, we no longer fall under the government-wide RIF procedures; the agency has developed their own procedures, FAA Order 3350.2C, Staffing Adjustment and RIF. Agency obligations and employee entitlements because of separation are somewhat complex and based upon individual circumstances. [The vendor�s obligation of the offer the right of first refusal has no impact/effect on the agency�s reduction in staff procedures.] We are working with HR and AT management to ensure that information about this process and other pertinent information is provided to FSS employees in a timely manner. More on this in the near future. First, each one of us, individually must assess our own individual situation, some questions would include; what are your priorities, what is most important to you, where do you want to live, what is your family situation, how old are you, how many years to retirement, do you have previous 2152 experience, what are your skills and abilities, are you willing to start a new career in a different federal agency and many more. Many Opportunities Outside Air Traffic Susan Nason has observed that folks in other Federal agencies routinely look for Federal position opportunities outside their current office/agency, whereas those in FAA tend to have a cradle-to-the-grave mentality. There are many opportunities within the Federal government outside of air traffic. Susan pointed out the new Office of Personnel Management (OPM) website, http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/, is a one-stop source for employment information and Federal jobs outside of the FAA. Most of the Flight Service folks felt that the skills and abilities we have developed and refined for the last 10 to 20 years do not transfer to other functions well. However, Judy Nauman, the acting 501, [here on a 90 day cross training from AF] noted that we possess a broad knowledge of the entire air traffic control system, which would be beneficial for other positions, which may include those in safety or FSDO. From what I understand there are dispatchers that work for AF in OKC, our background would be a good fit. It is clear that early retirement is very important to the members of our bargaining unit and is a critical element in an individual�s future career decision. However, the reality is that many individuals will lose the early retirement benefit, either by individual choice or by the agency�s selection of a vendor. Meant to Get Folks Thinking This article is only meant to get folks thinking their own particular situation and begin to take charge of their career. This article is also meant to generate more questions than to provide answers. The next Quarterly meeting scheduled for October 3rd and 4th in BTV. Folks from HR will be there. The plan is to submit questions in writing prior. The common desire by all is give researched and accurate information to the troops in the field. If you have any specific questions about HR procedures and options related to retirement, reduction in force, transition to other careers, benefits or other HR topics, please submit in writing to your facility representative, they will forward them up for a written response. It is my sincere hope that when the agency makes their decision next Christmas that no one is waiting for the agency to take care of them. Further, for those that made no other preparations by Christmas 2004 that they have done so as a conscious decision. The question each one of us must ask ourselves, do we risk missing opportunities in hopes that the MEO will win. Any questions or concerns please call. NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION
SOUTHERN REGION
SOUTHWEST REGION Mark Jaffe, Director Hello Everyone, We still continue to work on the PWS part of the A-76. Please see the PWS update, in this edition, for the latest on that front. Regionally, we have FacRep training scheduled for the week of September 29th. We have very few grievances working at the present time. I believe that this is a combination of the FacReps solving problems at the facility level and the bargaining unit being focused on Pay and A-76. At the regional level, I have been advocating a "kinder/gentler" approach in management attitude. I have pointed out that our workforce is under attack by upper FAA management and under-appreciated by almost everyone and using heavy-handed management techniques, in the current environment, would be extremely counter-productive. I think this is filtering down to the facility managers and supervisors and in most cases they are paying attention. At SJT "Pete" Pedersen is retiring. We�re going to miss Pete. Daphne Adams has arrived in FTW. Welcome Daphne. The supervisor selection, at DRI, has met with strong opposition from the bargaining unit. I hope things work out but I can�t say that I�m very confident. We�ll see what happens. Welcome to some new employees in the region: Mark Bass at CXO; Bob Seckler at CXO; and Dee Cochran (Dee, I hope I spelled that right) at JBR. Dee and Bob should be at the academy beginning Sept. 26. Welcome also to new members at SJT AFSS: Gary Blake, Vince Miller, Matt Sheffield, and Henry Ontiveros. Speaking of the academy, FAA HQ has decided that we are so well staffed, in the SW Region, that we won�t need any academy slots this year. I�m working to get our allocation raised from ZERO to something more appropriate. I�ll keep you posted. According to the FAA�s numbers, SW region is at about 94% of the allocated staffing. Most regions are in the 88-89% range. While these numbers are never completely accurate, we are in better shape than most, regionally. I will continue to work the hiring issue with the goal of keeping all facilities as close to 100% as possible. I will be attending a BOD meeting the week of OCT. 6th. The following week, October 12-17, Wally and I will be visiting the regional facilities. The scheduled visits are: ABQ on 10/12, CXO on the afternoon on 10/13 and DRI in the evening on 10/13, JBR on 10/14, FTW on 10/15, and SJT on 10/16. I apologize to the members in MLC but I couldn�t get Wally to stay another day and I couldn't figure out a way to work you into this schedule. I invited Wally with the thought of giving everyone a chance to attend a Union meeting and ask him questions about pay, A-76, legislation, etc. I strongly encourage all members to attend the meeting in your area and take advantage of this opportunity. There are many rumors and a lot of speculations floating around about many subjects. Here is your chance to hear the facts. Everyone should have received their ballot to vote on the pay proposal. If you haven�t voted and need more information, attend a union meeting on the above-mentioned dates. It will be a great way to get all of your questions, about the pay issue, resolved. Legislation We�re still alive and kicking. We have language in a temporary spending bill that would give Congress oversight on contracting out. This isn�t as good as "inherently governmental" but it could turn out to be all we need. I�ll keep you posted on further developments. At this time, the FAA has not notified the union of any intent to furlough bargaining unit employees. They are required to do that. They are also required to notify anyone who might be furloughed 90 days in advance. No one has been notified. Furloughs are normally for "non-essential employees." I am hearing rumors that Robert Choo, the new head of the AT organization, has ordered management to counsel anyone who has used more than 56 hours of SL this year. I hear that this was a pet peeve, of his, at American. Well, he�s not at American Airlines anymore and we have a contract that prevents us from being counseled "solely on the number of sick leave hours used." If this happens, notify your FacRep. WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION Mike Stafford, Director and Mike Puffer, Coordinator WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?? By now you all are aware of the pay agreement. Wally has explained all the specifics of the agreement, I just want to give you my take on it. First, it�s obviously not the greatest agreement I have seen. The contract part of it is good, but the pay and movement into core-comp is not fair after what we have been through the last 5 years. I will not try to tell you we are getting a getting a great deal from the FAA on pay. But then, when have we ever gotten a fair shake from this organization? Over 2 years ago, the membership at the San Diego convention was pretty unanimous in giving direction to Wally to hold the line, not accept the 5.5% and stick with our demand for 13.2%. The economic and political climate at the time was great, and it looked like we might be able to pull it off. We worked very hard to do so, but were essentially shot down by the FMCS. In the interim the changes in the U.S. Congress and the economy have been dramatic. This combined with the A-76 study put us in a terrible bargaining position. If we had it to do over, we probably would have taken the 5.5 % over 5 years -- but then again, when you do the math on that, it�s still not very much. I think you need to view this agreement in the light of "what are the alternatives?" If we did not come to an agreement on pay (and work rules) soon, Blakey was going to use the FAA Reform Act provisions to take her 0% pay raise offer to Congress, and would likely win easily considering the makeup of Congress. Additionally if she went this route, we would not have our new work rules put into effect, nor in my opinion be covered by the SCA act in case we are contracted out. Thus, we would gain no pay for OJTI or CIC, nor have any guarantees on the salary that would be paid our members in case we are contracted out. If you don�t have a copy of the SCA, get one and read it (hopefully we can publish it in this Newsletter). It basically says that if you have a negotiated pay rate (as we will have with this new agreement), then any contractor must pay the median of that rate when they bid the contract. What this boils down to is: $15 and hour, or $30 an hour if we are contracted out. This will also have an effect on the bidders and the likelihood of us losing the MEO bid to a contactor. Remember: all contractors make their money on paying the employees less. This will hopefully help negate that advantage. So, what you are going to have to evaluate here is: will I be better off if I ratify or not ratify? To me the answer is clear. I will vote for it. Given the economic, and political situation we are in, I do not believe we have much choice. I think we will have a good opportunity with the re-opener clause to get a significant raise when the A-76 is done. We all need to realize that further consolidation down the road is almost a necessity if we are to win the MEO. Any further consolidation would result in significant economic gains to the FAA. We will expect a piece of that for our members in the form of a pay raise. The gains in OJTI and CIC pay are significant, and with our staffing will be even more so in the future. The $1000 bonus is... well, it�s a thousand bucks. Not much, but I will take it. As for the contract, I believe it is a better agreement in most respects than the Red Book, and should serve us well. That�s my take on this whole situation; it will be up to the membership to ratify. We have given a large window of time for ratification, as we want everyone to think long and hard about it. I am trying to get Wally out the WP for some facility visits to discuss this important agreement. Obviously he cannot get to every AFSS, but I would like him to visit at least some of the WP AFSSs. HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS Eli Morrissy, HHR AFSS Training: Getting Down to the Wire Laz Arteaga (LA) and Jabali Person (DM) are now checked out down to their last position (Inflight) before becoming FPLs. They�re also now enjoying the fruits of their training diligence in the form of a pay increase to FG-11. Congratulations to both. Now the fun starts, we get to watch them duke it out for training time at Inflight. Comments on the New 7110.10 The rewrite of the 7110.10 has progressed to the point that comments are being solicited from the field. Check out the binder on top of the Coordinator position or ask Scott for more information. New Stuff Coming According to Management, we should have a start date on installation new carpet before the end of this month and new controller chairs should arrive sometime before the end of October. Installation of our new Positive Access Control system should happen sometime between October and the end of December and the new SUA/ISE equipment should be coming in approximately the same time frame. TODS Training Starting Individual training on the TODS is currently under way. Training should also begin soon on AISR, the replacement for AIS. After that, Cru-Ops training will take place and, with luck, SUA/ISE training will also happen during the first quarter of the new fiscal year (i.e. before the end of December). Still Waiting At the time this was printed, Joe Blanco (BO) was still waiting for the big call that�ll tell him he�s a grandpa for the first time. His daughter and her husband are expecting their first child any day now. Best of luck to all. 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. |