US LAWMAKER SEEKS DEAL ON AIR TRAFFIC PRIVATIZATION

Forbes.com, October 16, 2003

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior lawmaker trying to break the logjam on a massive aviation bill would consider limiting the exposure of some states to air traffic privatization if their senators support the measure, congressional aides said Thursday.

Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, is mainly looking for Republican support since Senate Democrats largely oppose the plan to give regulators authority to privatize 69 control towers at small and medium-sized airports.

A Republican aide said Mica has the votes to pass the bill in the House, but that chamber�s leadership wants him to ensure Senate backing before introducing the legislation on the House floor.

The aide said Mica has had discussions on various "horse-trading" options to win the few Senate votes needed.

The bill outlines long-term U.S. aviation priorities, including air traffic control, safety programs and security initiatives. Current programs are being funded through a temporary measure that expires at the end of the month.

The legislation initially passed both chambers with provisions prohibiting privatization indefinitely. But House-Senate negotiators -- led by Republicans and without Democratic support -- weakened the language this summer in a deal with the White House to avoid a threatened veto.

During that conference, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young, an Alaska Republican, removed two towers in his state from the list of facilities that could be privatized.

While the FAA has said repeatedly it has no plans to add to the more than 200 control towers now run by private contractors, the agency wants the flexibility to do so down the road and has identified the 69 locations.

Mica�s latest attempt to gain support from the Senate enraged labor groups and Democrats who are vehemently opposed to privatization on grounds that air traffic control would be less safe.

"This action demonstrates that the GOP (Republican Party) doesn�t believe their own rhetoric that privatization increases safety," said House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
 

   FOES ATTACK IDEA OF EXEMPTING CONTROL TOWERS FROM PRIVATIZATION

By Zach Patton, CongressDaily

Opponents of air-traffic-control privatization sharply criticized a proposal Thursday to protect certain control towers from privatization, in an effort to secure votes for Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation.

The plan, floated this week by House Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., would remove almost half the airports currently included in the authorization's contract tower provision.

In comments reported by Aviation Daily, Mica said he was mulling a proposal, currently included in the conference draft, to pull about 30 airports from the list of 69 that could employ private air-traffic controllers.
The 30 airports would all be in Republican areas, "since we�re not getting any Democratic support" for the FAA reauthorization, Mica said. To gain enough votes to pass the reauthorization, Mica said, "we may have to take it tower by tower."

A Mica spokesman told CongressDaily the idea was one of many that Mica has explored to reach a compromise and gain Senate approval of the bill. "The focus is on securing the few remaining votes we need in the Senate," the aide said. "We�re focusing on Republicans, because the Democrats have taken an all-or-nothing approach."

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association decried Mica�s idea, saying it puts partisan politics before safety.

"This plan is not about safety; it�s not about efficiency; it�s not about cost," said NATCA President John Carr. "It�s about being lucky enough to live in a Republican district."

NATCA opposes any control-tower privatization, and Carr said Mica�s "deal-making" threatens the safety of the American air transit system.

"While we�re out trying to run the largest, most efficient air travel system in the world, there are congressmen trying to play Monty Hall," Carr said.

AFL-CIO Transportation and Trades president Sonny Hall similarly blasted Mica�s idea, calling the proposal "ridiculous."

"This is partisan politics in its worst form," Hall said. "This latest proposal would create two standards of aviation safety, a gerrymandered map of where it is safe to fly in this country.... To suggest that the level of safety of a region would be directly related to who it elects to Congress is a sign of just how little support this legislation enjoys."
 

   A76 UPDATE

Kate Breen, A76 Representative -- [email protected]

"Clock" Not Started Yet

The official announcement in FedBizOps starting the "clock" still has not been made, and it looks like it may not be made for a few more weeks. As I hear more, I�ll update you.

I attended the A-76 Institutes Human Resource Advisor a couple of weeks ago, and here are a few things I�ve pulled from it. This is not the end of the information I�ll pass along, but this simply starts to scratch the surface of some of the questions you have.

One of the biggest things stressed during the two day class is that the transition plan needs to be developed early in the competition process to identify projected employee impacts and the time needed to accommodate such impacts, depending on the potential outcome of the competition. The transition plan and the phase-in plan shouldn�t be confused, the phase-in plan is what would be offered by potential service providers responding to a solicitation. This is something I will do my best to push with HR to ensure everyone knows what their rights/benefits are leading up to any transition either to the MEO or a contractor.

What YOU Need to Do

Something you need to do for yourselves is request to see your Official Personnel Folders (OPF) from the region. Get them and go through them to make sure all of your information in there is up to date and correct. The next thing to do is request a retirement print out from the regional HR person if you have 15 years of service or more. Request one for the 12/04 date and then request another for 2-3 years down the road or what you�re ideal retirement date would be in maybe 5 years. I�ve had questions about combining ATC time with military time and the only way to get the answers for you�re individual case is to get the printout. Don�t be afraid to ask for this information, the agency has put us in this position, the very least they can do is let us all look at information we are allowed to see to make possible life altering decisions in a few years. It is also important that as the HR people come around to interview people and have you fill out different paperwork, that you be diligent in filling out any and all paperwork they give you in a timely manner. The last thing I want to see happen is someone miss an opportunity because "their dog ate their paperwork." You will probably want to punch me right in the nose over these issues as I repeat myself over the next few months, but it�s important to YOU. Ok, I�ll let it go for now!

There have been a ton of questions on Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP). The Human Resources Office at FAA HQ has to request the authority on both programs from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to my knowledge this has not been done yet, but I have the question in as we speak and will update on that. According to the instructor, if the MEO wins and an individual has had 52 weeks consecutive service at a particular grade, that individual will save grade for two years and then save pay for two years providing there is no separation from service. The agency won�t get to the true MEO for approximately four years after the decision. I still have some research to do on this issue to make sure it applies to FAA and if there are any other restrictions involved.

I know there are still so many issues to be discussed like bumping rights, reemployment with other agencies, transfer of leave, PCS, age 31 limitations, and job abolishment to name just a few. You have my word I�ll try to do the very best in getting information out so you can make informed decisions about your future. The agency doesn�t feel the need to get that information out to you right now. If you�re poking around the internet, and have some time to do some reading there is a web site called SHARE A-76, http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/inst/share.nsf/

Check it out, it�s a DOD web site but I�ve found some information there. I will ask John Dibble to post a sample RIF checklist to the NAATS web site so you can look at that. Finally, Bill Dolan is supposed to be writing an article on RIFs from the class he attended last month. I am trying to meet with the Human Resource Advisor (HRA) to see how I can "help."

Competitive Sourcing Conference

I attended Competitive Sourcing Conference on October 16th and it was pretty much the same rhetoric with one exception, they actually allowed two Unions to speak on the A-76 issue and its problems. Both Jackie Simon from AFGE and Kim Mosley from NTEU were eloquent in presenting the problems employees are facing with the new A-76 circular that lead to systematic bias to the contractors. One of the messages was that there is a place for competition in the government however it should not be done for a score card or a quota. The Union Representatives presented their information point by point and all the management side of the briefings seemed to talk about is the President�s Management Agenda and scorecards.

Now, if you�ve read enough and don�t want to see more negative information stop right here!

ACA -- the Same Ol� Rhetoric

The video tape from the ATCA symposium that was supposed to be distributed for the field to watch has turned into another ACA feel good video about the A-76 process and does nothing more than restate the same ol� rhetoric. ACA is actually thinking about putting parts of the real ATCA symposium on a web site for those who want to view it. I�ll bet they cut the panel discussion at the end!!! That was my film debut! The next money pit thing they�re doing is developing a brochure on the same frequently asked questions that are on the web page and in the binders. I�d love to see the total money expended on just those to "projects" alone, what a waist of more time and money. The next thing they�re (ACA) is talking about doing is having a managers conference, what a boondoggle (sp) there. They are out briefing managers at regional meetings and then are going to set up a meeting to brief managers again at some location that I would bet is not going to be on the ten worst places to meet list! I�m pushing them to make it a manager/FacRep meeting, we have to work together on this to do the best for the employees. Let me apologize up front to the managers that have been very supportive of the employees during this whole mess. But let�s be honest there are those managers out there that are waiting for the right moment to put in their paperwork for retirement and have a hard time passing information along to the employees because this doesn�t affect them personally. So let�s get them all together to brief them again so they can put in the paperwork as informed individuals! Sorry, I�ll stop there...

PWS Grievance Filed

NAATS national has filed a grievance on the lack of PWS team members� involvement in developing/writing of the PWS, it�s been forwarded to John for posting on the NAATS web site.

Well that was certainly a long update and I apologize, but there was a lot to pass along. Let me know if you have any questions, and again I�ll work on HR issues, I know their important.

   NAATS PWS GRIEVANCE

Editor�s Note: This is the text of the grievance filed against the FAA regarding the Joanne Kansier�s (ACA-1) unilateral move to exclude NAATS from full participation, as previously agreed, in the Performance Work Statement process

October 9, 2003
Hand Delivered

Raymond B. Thoman, Director
Office of Labor Relations
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, DC 20591

Re: Grievance
Dear Mr. Thoman:

This grievance is filed due to the Agency�s (specifically Joanne Kansier/ACA-1) refusal to allow the Union�s representatives to participate fully in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) process of the Flight Service A-76 study as agreed to by the Parties in Sections 1 and 4 of the NAATS/FAA Memorandum of Understanding concerning this study, dated 12/20/02.

Background:

After Ms. Kansier formed the PWS team, consisting of Steve Hopkins (ABU-40), James Sizemore (ACA-4), 3 management representatives, 3 NAATS representatives and various contractor personnel from Grant-Thornton, a plan was developed. As part of this plan, the PWS team visited various regions and briefed the employees on the PWS process. This process was briefed as including two steps involving field facilities.

The first step included PWS Team visits to selected flight service facilities to determine the functions of the flight service option to determine a comprehensive list or "dictionary" of services provided by flight service.
The second step would then have the PWS Team again visiting field facilities to gather workload data on the services contained in the "dictionary" to aid in developing the PWS requirements.

Upon completion of these data gathering steps the PWS Team would the, with the assistance of the contractor personnel, develop the Performance Work Statement (which includes the QASP or "Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan) required by OMB Circular A-76. This would then be forwarded to a higher level management group, representing the FAA Administrator, as a recommendation for approval as the PWS document. This document sets the requirements to be met by all bids from contractors and the MEO.

Complaint:

Ms Kansier has arbitrarily decided to eliminate both the workload data gathering and the PWS Team involvement in the development of the recommended Performance Work Statement. She has stated that ACA and the Grant-Thornton contract personnel would instead write them without any union of field participation in direct violation of the MOU. She has stated that she was not a party to the negotiated MOU and therefore would not be bound by it.

Discussion:

Section 1. of the MOU was agreed to for the express purpose of giving the Union, representing the bargaining unit employees, the right to fully participate in the development of the PWS and the MEO consistent with OMB Circular A-76 and applicable law.

During negotiations, conducted by Leo Stoltz for the Agency and Bill Dolan for NAATS, the use of "may" versus "shall" was discussed and both agreed that it would not be practical to mandate union participation. It was agree the term "may" would be used to convey the right of the Union�s involvement in the competitive sourcing process if it chose to exercise this right.

Section 4. of the MOU affords the Union�s representatives the same level of participation as other team members.

In the discussion between Mr. Stolz and Mr. Dolan they were again in agreement that, unless prohibited by OMB Circular A-76 or applicable law, the Union�s representatives were intended to have the right to full participation in the development of required A-76 documents containing the recommendations for the Administrator or her designee(s) approval.

In trying to resolve this issue, Bill Dolan has had numerous discussions with Leo Stolz. In these discussions they agreed as to the intent of the language contained in the MOU.

Leo Stolz has had meetings with Ms. Kansier attempting to resolve the issue to no avail.

Resolution:

1. Ms. Kansier be directed to abide by the MOU and allow full participation of Union-designated representatives in the development of the recommended Performance Work Statement.

2. Ms. Kansier be reminded that the purpose of the A-76 process is to provide a service (flight services) to the customer (the pilot) in a manner which provides value to the taxpayers funding the service. It is NOT a means to Presidential awards, bonuses, or personal recognition at the expense of those whose jobs and careers are on the line.

Sincerely yours,

/S/

Walter W. Pike
President

    OASIS UPDATE

Jeff Barnes, OASIS National Representative, [email protected]

10/09/03 -- I am at Harris Corporation participating in meetings and testing this week. My first day here I participated in a Technical Exchange Meeting on the Harris Help Desk. Having a help desk we can turn to when we have problems is a new thing. Everyone is trying to figure out how it will work into the future, as it�s a new thing for us, and Harris is trying to figure out how best to structure it to work for us. This is important because the calls to the help desk have been significantly higher than originally anticipated, which has driven the cost of the help desk higher than budgeted for. When we spend more money on the help desk it means less money is available for things like software upgrades. This was the start of an effort to figure out how to use the help desk efficiently, and to see if there are also other sources of information that can be used within the FAA to try to cut down on the call volume. No one intends to place limits on calling the help desk, we just want to figure out how to reduce the volume by having facilities initiate a call to the help desk only when necessary and appropriate.

Software Changes

We are also getting our first look at the software package that will be installed at CXO. It is super sweet. Some of the major changes:

• TFR overlays on the graphics. Alice Haines found a bug in it within 30 seconds of sitting down to do some testing. That�s actually good because it finds a problem early enough that Harris should be able to fix it before it hits the field.

• Connection of the SUA overlay to the SAMS platform. OASIS already displayed all SUA areas in an overlay on the graphics...now you will be able to see if the area is active, going to be active soon, or cold.

• Formatting of the NOTAMs in the Weather and Aeronautical Briefing (WAB) window. This is the alphanumeric side of OASIS. The new formatting clearly delineates NOTAMs by indenting the lines beyond the first one. This makes a surprising difference in the ease of picking out pertinent NOTAMs.

• Right click decode. If you see a contraction or LOCID in the WAB you don�t understand you can highlight it, right click, and select the "decode" and it will decode it for you without having to select the function from the menu and type it in yourself. This will be a big time saver when you run into an ident or contraction you aren�t familiar with.

There are many more changes in this software. These are just some of the most obvious ones that I saw on my first look. The Human Factors Team will be testing the software extensively in November and there will also be field-testing at CXO. Once the CXO testing is passed, the 13 stations that will already have OASIS will be retrofitted with the new software.

We still have some coordinating and testing to do, but it looks like we might be able to demo OASIS at the AOPA Expo in Philadelphia at the end of October on the new software. I hope we can work it out. It will be very difficult to make an argument about outdated, antiquated equipment in Flight Service when we can show the TFR overlays and the active SUA overlay.

Changing of the Guard

At the Board meeting Tuesday the Board of Directors gave their approval to some OASIS selections presented by Wally Pike. Effective January 1, my replacement as NAATS National OASIS Representative and OASIS Human Factors Team Co-lead will be Dennis Detrow. He has been involved with OASIS for a long time and is an excellent selection for the position. His replacement as an HFT member is Jim Banks from FAI. Jose Vasquez from FTW has replaced Dave Hoover as Alternate Co-lead and Steve Jones from MIA has replaced Arnie Holmes. We plan to have everyone at the HFT meeting the last week of October so that the new members can transition into their positions by seeing how the HFT works. I am also including Dennis in as much of what I am doing as I can to give him an idea of who�s who and how to work the political aspect of the job to get what we need for OASIS. No need to bring him up to speed on the technical aspect of it since he has as good or better grasp of the technical details of OASIS as I do. All of these selections are excellent, and I look forward to working with them in the time I have remaining in this position.

Just a Few "Thank Yous...

I�m not going to make this any longer or more painfully boring than I have to, but I want to thank you and the board for letting me do this job for you. I am proud of what we have accomplished on OASIS and I'm pleased to see we have good people in place to see it forward. Thanks are also due to our working-level counterparts at the FAA. When I started we had a largely adversarial relationship, but over time we have fostered an atmosphere of trust in each other. All of us are working for the success of OASIS within the constraints that are placed on us from above. I am also grateful to Harris for welcoming the interaction we have had with their engineers on OASIS. We have been able to give them insight into what we do while learning how best to help them do what they do successfully with little wasted effort.

Of course I thank most of all my colleagues and friends on the OASIS Human Factors Team. They have been my/our most effective tool in creating the OASIS we have today, and they are a great success story and example of how things should work between NAATS and the FAA. We had rough times in the beginning, but once everyone saw we were working honestly and practically to create an excellent product we found acceptance and cooperation from people in management where we hadn�t had it before. I hope that our work continues to be a positive not only for continued development of OASIS into the product we know it can be, but also that our work can be seen as an example of how union, agency, and contractor can work together toward a mutually beneficial goal.

10/15/03 -- I am back in Washington, DC for ten days between trips to Harris Corporation. Both of these trips have particular interest to OASIS and how it will look and work for us down the road.

The trip last week included our first look at the new software that will be going into Conroe (CXO) AFSS (retrofitting to the other stations with OASIS will begin in January). The new release is impressive. There has been a lot of detail work done, but there are also some big new items we will see with this drop. The two biggest are TFR overlays and SAMS connection.

OASIS Graphics

The TFR overlay works on WIND (the weather graphics side of OASIS). It works the same way as the flight precaution and pilot report overlays. Whenever an FDC NOTAM comes in OASIS looks for information that identifies it as a TFR. It then translates it into a graphical depiction of the airspace identified in the TFR and it becomes part of the overlay. It is separated into presidential or non-presidential also. You will actually get five categories on the overlay. Presidential and non-presidential are the two categories where the computer is completely able to understand the NOTAM. There is also Presidential State and Non-Presidential State. These get NOTAMs when OASIS identifies a TFR and can identify a state it is associated with, but can�t translate any further than that for some reason (examples in the past would be presidential TFRs that are a 5 NMR of some school or courthouse without an FRD or Lat/Long being included). In this case the associated state would be outlined on the map instead of a specific location. The final category is for those TFRs identified by OASIS that it could not parse at all. This would bring up a box with the text for all TFR NOTAMs that OASIS identified as such but couldn�t associate any location with, such as the one that prohibited flight within airspace around any large gathering of people, or nuclear power plants, etc.

SAMS (I don�t know what the acronym stands for) is a database that is maintained at FAA headquarters that stores information regarding SUA activity. Right now in the field OASIS will display SUA airspace for you in an overlay, but gives you no further information on the graphic other than the fact it exists. With this connection OASIS is able to not only display that the airspace is there, it will also show whether the airspace is currently active, inactive, or going to be active soon (There are actually two categories of "going to be active soon... I am not sure what the difference is between the two. We will have to get that clarified and made part of the training for this drop.)

What this means on the graphics side is that you will be able to overlay the proposed route of flight and quickly see whether it is impacted by TFR or active military airspace in addition to what we can see now. These are both important new features.

Improved Alpha-numerics

On the alpha-numerics side I will also highlight a couple of significant improvements. First is that the display of NOTAMs has been redesigned so that NOTAM Ds, TFRs, FDCs (that can be tied to specific airspace), and General FDCs will each have their own tabs in the Weather and Aeronautical Briefing (WAB) window. This will allow you to give a briefing without having to look at things like the old "Afghanistan is a bad place to fly" NOTAM every time. Also, the way NOTAMs have been displayed has been changed. The Human Factors Team took advantage of the good work done on the NSTS display and adapted the methods used there into a form useful in the way OASIS displays the NOTAMs. The most significant and obvious change is that a multi-line NOTAM will be indented after the first line so it is very easy to pick out where new NOTAMs begin. Our thanks to the NSTS Team for their work on NOTAM display. It makes sense and makes NOTAMs easier to brief than ever before.

The second improvement to the alpha-numeric side I will discuss here is in the decode function. Currently if you want to decode a LOCID or a contraction you call up the decode box and type it in to get the info back. With this software if you see a contraction or a LOCID in the WAB you don�t know you can highlight it with your mouse, right-click it, then select the kind of decode you want to do on it from the box that pops up (you can decode it as a LOCID, Contraction, or SUA). Then the information is returned to you as though you had done the old style decode (That decode function will still be there. This is just a quicker way to do it from the WAB). This will greatly increase the speed and ease of decoding things contained in the briefings.

There are lots of other things done with this drop. These four were the most obvious and the ones with clear and immediate positive impact to us. The value of getting this first look other than just getting to see what�s in the software is a chance to play with it and see how it works and see if we can catch any problems early. Alice Haines discovered a problem with the TFR overlay less than a minute after sitting down to look at it. The engineer who worked on it came down to the lab where we were testing. Alice showed him the problem and by that afternoon he had fixed the problem in the code. Probably fast enough to get it included before the software got sent to the Tech Center for testing, and certainly fast enough that it will never go to the field with that problem.

OASIS NOTAM Solution

My trip down to Harris next week will be to attend a Program Management Review (PMR. A monthly review of the program from the management level with info about what is going on now and what is scheduled for the future.) Also on that day we will see the official demonstration of Harris� proposed OASIS NOTAM Solution (ONS). The ONS is Harris� proposal to resolve the requirement for NOTAM display at all facilities that the NSTS Team is currently working on. With the ONS Harris is going beyond just resolving the problem of displaying NOTAMs to fix the problem we have in M1FC. The ONS would put a satellite dish and OASIS Weather Graphics Server in each station. At each position the WSI display would be replaced by an OASIS monitor that would display the OASIS weather graphics. Harris will take advantage of the same key capture that NSTS uses to take the flight plan info the briefer uses in M1FC to get the NOTAMs and display them on the OASIS monitor. This will enable briefers at M1FC facilities to be able to use the OASIS graphics capabilities without having a full OASIS system. You will be able to overlay flight plan routes on the graphics, use the TFR and SAMS overlays as described above, and be able to use the graphics the same way that a briefer in an OASIS facility uses them. I think this has some pretty exciting potential for us, although I will admit to being biased in favor of OASIS. Basically this puts half of the OASIS in every facility, and when money shows up to do more full installations beyond what is currently budgeted more than half of the hardware will already be in place.

Human Factors Team Meeting

After the PMR I will stay there for an OASIS Human Factors Team meeting. This will be the transition meeting that will include both the outgoing members of the team and the incoming ones to give our new Team members the smoothest transition into their new roles we can. In addition to our usual design work we will also be working to resolve the outstanding questions on the waterfall... who will be in the 11th slot in 2004, and what will the remainder of the waterfall look like.

OASIS Demonstration at AOPA Expo

I will leave the HFT meeting early and travel to meet John Tollini in Philadelphia where we will be demonstrating OASIS at the AOPA Expo. While I was at Harris last week I talked to Bob Groot from the Tech Center and the Harris engineers and we believe we have come up with a way to hook the remote work station we will use in the demo up to the Tech center OASIS and get live data through it (Live data is not normally available to the Tech Center OASIS because it does not connect directly to the NAS. However, using a restore capability in OASIS we feel we can get the live data without having the direct connection.). There is a bit of coordination and testing to complete, but I am very excited about the possibility of demonstrating OASIS on the new software at AOPA. After all, there is no validity to the complaint that flight service has outdated equipment when we can show them TFR overlays and SAMS data in addition to all the other capabilities (the problem Alice found is not a factor in this even if the fix isn�t in the software yet). I would love to be able to show that the talk about outdated equipment and technology is a bad one because of the capabilities of OASIS. The only reason there is any validity remaining to it is because the FAA has refused to fund OASIS deployment in the face of the A-76, the very program that the FAA and AOPA are basically saying is the only way pilots will see better equipment and capabilities in flight service. I think this will strongly support our view of the A-76 and go a long way toward de-clawing the technical argument of the FAA and AOPA if we can get enough people (and the right people) to see it. The only risk involved at this time is that the continuing resolution runs out right in the middle of the Expo, so worst case we would have to pack up and go home right in the middle of the show. Hopefully we won�t be forced into doing so.
 

   LATEST SURVEY SHOWS FEDS� VIEWS ON USE OF CONTRACTORS

FedNews OnLine, October 9, 2003

The most recent FedNews OnLine FedPoll covered the areas of contracting out and outsourcing, and competitions related to the potential for outsourcing. According to those results, there is quite a good deal of outsourcing taking place. However, the poll results indicate that federal employees feel they can compete against private contractors to retain work in-house.

On the original question of how much work is currently being performed by contractors at your agency and location, 45 percent said 1 to 25 percent, 29 percent said 26 to 50 percent, 11 percent said more than 50 percent, 6 percent said none, and 9 percent were unsure. Respondents indicated that quite a bit of work is being performed by contractors.

A series of questions related to competitions between federal agencies and private contractors was also asked. Just over half of those respondents in agencies where competition had actually occurred - 53 percent - indicated that their agency had won competitions against private sector companies, while 27 percent indicated that the agency had not won any competitions against private sector companies, with the remainder unsure. Regarding the reasons why the agency won competitions, 43 percent indicated a combination of price and experience, 31 percent listed price as the main factor (the agency was the low bidder), 9 percent indicated greater experience of the federal agency and its workers, and 17 percent said none of the above.

Just under 70 percent of respondents of those who had a definite opinion indicated that even when they won a competition, there are now fewer federal employees performing the work than before the competition, 29 percent said that the same number of federal employees perform the work as before, and only 3 percent said that there are now more federal employees performing the work than there were before the competition.

Regarding the survey, one respondent stated that in order for the federal government to win A-76 studies, the agency must RIF 15-20 percent of its workforce or use buyouts along with a reduction-in-force. Another respondent said that the agency won the competition, but had to downgrade employees by five grade levels in order to win the competition. Finally, a number of respondents complained that contractors did not provide the same level of quality service as the federal employees who had previously performed the work.
 

   PWS UPDATE

Mark Jaffe, ASW Regional Director

Well folks, another month has passed and the PWS continues to hurtle along at breakneck speed with no apparent regard to the quality of the product. The lady running the show, Joann Kansier (ACA 1), has repeatedly made statements that indicate that she has no interest in a quality product. Her primary concern is that the study be concluded as soon as possible.

FAA Attempts to Exclude NAATS

The latest battles that the PWS team is fighting pertain to gathering workload data and team participation in writing the PWS and QASP. Last year, in the initial PWS briefings that were conducted in each region, the FAA (ACA) and Grant-Thornton ASSURED everyone that before the PWS could be written, more visits to the regions would be necessary to collect workload data. The FAA promised that they were committed to writing a quality PWS statement and that this workload data was deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of the PWS statement. We were told that an accurate PWS statement could not be written without accurate workload data. How things have changed. At this time, there are no plans for more facility visits to collect workload data. All of the assurances and promises about program integrity and a quality product were just a placebo to keep the workers calm while ACA works toward their goal of taking away our jobs. The only data collection plans, to date, are a survey that will be sent to the facilities to ask for input. How this survey will be used is still unclear. The writing of the first draft of the PWS will have begun long before this survey data is collected and analyzed. The PWS team, NAATS and management members both, have continually stated that workload data is critical to the PWS process and that the few sources that are available, such as CATTS, are unreliable and incomplete. Ms. Kansier�s answer to this is that erroneous information is acceptable as long as everyone bases their contract bid on the same erroneous information -- in other words, a level playing field.

Here�s an analogy. This will be like playing a major league baseball game in a high school gymnasium, with the lights out and then have one person arbitrarily decide the winner half way through the game. It�s a waste of time, there is no quality in the process, no integrity involved in the outcome, and someone is probably going to get hurt. In a meeting this week, I informed Ms. Kansier of the commitments that have been made about workload data and informed her that this data was not available from CATTS or other sources and the only way to accomplish the data gathering would be to send the PWS team back out in the field to collect the necessary data. She said that she was aware that most of the data was unavailable and that what was available was flawed, but she refused on the grounds that she didn�t feel that she could trust the PWS Team to be truthful about the data that was collected and that she felt that we would alter the figures. Keep in mind that the PWS team that she doesn�t trust includes 3 NAATS members, 3 people from Air Traffic management (facility manager, supervisor, and R.O. person), 2 management types from ACA assigned to the project, and several people from the contractor that the agency hired, Grant-Thornton.

Make Your Responses Accurate

You will probably have seen the survey by the time you read this. If you have input, make your responses as accurate as possible. This may be the only method of data gathering available to us and we need to make it as accurate as possible.

Still Out in the Cold

In the matter of NAATS/AT participation in writing the PWS and QASP documents, we are still out in the cold. Ms. Kansier has made an arbitrary decision to exclude the people that know the job best (PWS Team) and assigned the task to a group of people that are unfamiliar, at best, with the intricacies of our job. These people are intelligent and have learned a great deal about what we do but why leave out the people on the PWS team? The concept of the PWS team was to have a team of experts available. The original commitment was to have the PWS team help write the PWS and QASP. That�s what we were all told last year. When asked why she was doing it this way and ignoring a valuable resource, Ms. Kansier said that this was the method that she was going to use and that was that, PERIOD. We have been told that we will be able to review and comment on the PWS. We have asked what will happen to the comments and have not received a commitment that the comments will be addressed.

   LIAISON UPDATES

ARS Report

Steve Pollok, ATP Liaison -- [email protected]

NAATS_Representatives

As I stated in the last newsletter, the FAA has decided not to continue our ARU and ATX liaisons, now that Art and Beth�s details are up. I�ll miss Art and Beth, not only for the fine people that they are, but also for their help, and the expertise that each brought to their area. Additionally, NAATS has just recently been informed that the ARQ liaison position will not be renewed. Bill Dolan, NAATS Chief Negotiator, is currently filling this position.

There has been some discussion, with the FAA, that has given NAATS some hope that it might be able to regain its ATX liaison position. There doesn�t appear to be much hope for ARU, which was actually working with the ATB branch. For the time being, I am participating on the ARU/ATB project teams until the NAATS Board of Directors (BOD) can decide on how NAATS will continue its involvement with these programs.
Notam Short Term Solution (NSTS)

Testing of the NSTS started the week after the Labor Day weekend. This is not the actual Proof of Concept (POC) test because the other two domains are not prepared to start.

Testing, at Cedar City and Macon, has revealed some additional problems with the NSTS. Most of these appear to be software problems that can be corrected. The main question is the amount of time that it will take for the developer to make the necessary fixes. Due to the problems detected ATP has suspended the use of the system for briefing, but is keeping the system running, and has asked both facilities to continue testing the system to discover any additional problems. POC testing will commence once the towers and Salt Lake ARTCC have finished their training.

Integrated Information Display System (IIDS)

Little to no progress has been made on this product. Section 14 of the OASIS MOU requires the FAA to procure an IIDS network to be in all facilities not later than the end of FY-04. Base on the lack of progress it seems doubtful that the FAA will meet this obligation to NAATS.

OASIS/DUATS Integration

No new information on the status of this effort.

Tape Retention

No new information.

National Airspace System -- Interference Detection, Locating, and Mitigation (NAS-IDLM)

The program is still in the Investment Analysis phase.

Aeronautical Information System Replacement (AISR)

There was a telcon held, between the Central Region and FAA Headquarters, concerning the lack of an interface between the AISR and the SAIDS-4s being used in the region�s facilities. While I have not heard of a definite decision it appears that Headquarters is going to go forward with the current product.

NAATS has submitted Union-1 MOU to management. We are waiting for management to submit their response. Additionally, we have learned that the contractor has started installing the AISR at Gainesville AFSS. An in-depth AISR briefing will be given to the BOD at the October BOD meeting.

International Flight Plans

No new information available.

Former ARU Programs:

Juneau Airport Wind System (JAWS)

The JAWS Team had a meeting, the week of Sept 15-18, at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO. A new strategic plan was discussed for program. The plan calls for delivering the prototype system by the end of FY-04, and testing of the system during FY-05. Plans were made for a meeting, later this year in Juneau, with representatives from the three air traffic options and airways facilities to make decisions on various portions of the program, such as facility displays, etc.

Stand Alone Weather System (SAWS)

The team has been discussing the two displays under consideration. There is difference of opinion between Human Factors and the users on the display of the information text. Also, the current plan is for one display to be available in the flight service stations. Art Finnegan felt that we would need a minimum of two and preferably one at each in-flight position and one at the weather observer position. I agree with Art�s assessment. Once an IIDS is available, it is envisioned by NAATS that SWAS would be available at every position. Gainesville AFSS is our test facility for this system.

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)

Access to this system would be useful to flight service for hazard detection and avoidance. While the system is not currently planned for flight service NAATS is advocating its use at flight service stations. The team appears to be receptive to this idea but no decisions have been made. The system will eventually be available, via the Internet, for external users.

Weather And Radar Processor (WARP)

NAATS has a national representative, and a Command Center representative, assigned to the team. I will sit in on meetings mainly for information on the system.

Graphical Area Forecast (GFA)

Art Finnegan will continue with this program as the NAATS national representative. I�m sure that Art will continue to report on this program.

FSOSC Report

Jim Mehan & Kevin Carl, FSOSC Liaisons

The feedback from our field facilities has tailed off somewhat over the last month. We aren�t receiving as many calls regarding connectivity. So we are assuming that that is not as big of an issue anymore. We are still waiting for the FAA to switch over to FIRMNET, but no word as of yet as to when this will occur. Once this transition has been made, the connectivity problem should become a moot point.

There are still local issues at some of the AFSSs regarding placement of the TODS computers, and whether or not it is operational. We will continue to try and get these managers to make this product available to the briefers.

We realize that with only two computers, (so far) that they must be placed near the briefing positions on the operations floor. Ideally we would like to have every briefing position with the TFR display capability.

The Flight Service Operations Support Center (FSOSC) continues to make in roads here at headquarters. We are now in the loop providing quality control checks for presidential, and airspace (air shows etc.) type NOTAMS. These draft NOTAMS are sent to us and we check them to ensure that the coordinates match up with the Fix Radial Distance (FRD). We also check the time conversions (local/GMT) to make sure they are correct. We also offer insight into whether or not the NOTAM is understandable.

We appreciate any feedback that any of you can offer. So any suggestions or comments that you may have, feel free to call us:

• Kevin Carl (202) 267-3739

• Jim Meehan (202) 267-3726

ICS Report

Steve Glowacki, ICS Rep.

The world of voice-switching continues to ride the roller-coaster.

As a reminder, the ICS program combines both Flight Service and terminal requirements into a single procurement. Concurrently, and for many years previously, there has been a drive to work toward fewer (or a single) voice switch for all three domains. For whatever reason it didn�t happen before; it now seems possible, with ICS leading the way. In reality, I believe there will be three voice switches; one for the large facilities with over 200 positions, one for those with less than 200 positions, and one for facilities having less than 10 or so positions.

Currently, there are two main efforts; the first is the ICS program, which is working toward acquiring a favorable JRC (Joint Resource Council) decision so that the team can move ahead with the rest of the acquisition efforts. In mid summer, the ICS Final Requirements Document (FRD) was completed with full consensus of all who participated and we�re now waiting for formal signatures by each of the respective department heads. No problems are anticipated.

The initial draft ICS Specification document is still being created. There�s a lot of work to be done with this since it has to capture of the Flight Service and terminal needs while falling in line with the strategic planning being done for the NAS-wide communications systems. Unfortunately this work has taken a pause during the month of September; partially due to outside impacts and partially due to the wait for a mid-October Investment Analysis (IA) decision regarding a higher NAS-wide effort.

This second effort is an investment and alternative analysis of the voice switching needs for the entire NAS. This is an evaluation of the collective needs of all three ATC domains and the areas they impact. It�s a strategic effort, of which I think it�s going to have great value.

The only drawback is this effort is overshadowing the ICS and causing some pause in the working needing to be done, as I mentioned already. I don�t agree with the pause, because any work done for ICS can be applied to whatever the NAS-wide investment analysis reveals. As of late, the efforts are still continuing with ICS, albeit at a slower pace. By the time this comes to print, all of this will probably be close to resolve.

Regarding the potential outcomes of the NAS-wide analysis, many anticipate (and I agree) that the ICS program will still be identified as a smart acquisition in support of the larger effort. Since the ICS combines two of the three domains, it makes sense to use this effort to satisfy the middle category of a potential three-switch concept.

Regarding the NAS Voice Switch (NAS VS) effort, we�re currently working on writing the Concept of Operations (CONOPS). This document addresses at a high level what the next generation VS will be able to do for all three ATC domains. It includes the full range of the operational complexities, as well as, the administrative, maintenance and logistics requirements gleaned from past experience.

In support of this, I recently completed a review of the ICS FRD to assess how many of the requirements were common for both Flight Service and Terminal versus unique. The results were interesting, being 96.1% common with 3.4% unique for AFSS. I then expanded this and compared the ICS FRD to the current draft NAS VS CONOPS, the results showed 99.1% common with .9% unique for AFSS!

Why is this important?

Well, there are those, like MITRE (contractor) that have presented analysis stating that Flight Service functions are different from Terminal and Enroute. This type of analysis gives some inclination that it�s appropriate to address those options separately. With limited money in the FAA�s budget, it�s fairly clear where that would leave us. The high degree of similarities among the three options reinforces acquiring few pieces of equipment, thus ensuring Flight Service a replenishment of its old voice switch equipment.

In contrast to other studies, the statistics from the ICS RD are based on evaluation by operational people familiar with all three domains. The assessment shows that the equipment is (largely) common. In my opinion it also says that what�s said after the microphone is keyed or after the call is made is irrelevant when evaluating VS equipment replacement. As I said to management recently, "regardless of the content of the communications, the conduit must be ensured both among the ATC domains and between those domains and the outside users."

Because the NAS VS IA requires a comprehensive review, I created a summary of the inventory of all the voice switch equipment within the NAS and validated it with the ARN and AND organizations. Included in this summary is when the equipment was first deployed, last deployed and when its End of Lifecycle (EOL) will occur. The resulting graphic (attached) provides a clear snapshot of what we�re up against.

The snapshot has surprised a lot of people.

I need to point out that EOL does not mean the equipment is on life support, but simply that the equipment is no longer manufactured or offered for sale. The �life support� period would begin with End of Maintenance (EOM), of which is currently being determined and is largely based on when site spares can no longer be replenished.

It�s also important to keep in mind that the current AMS process normally takes programs 3-7 years to get from Idea to Deployment. Appropriately, this amount of lee-time is definitely needed to deploy a product before the EOM arrives, but preferably before EOL. Likewise, time needs to be included for the actual deployment to all of the facilities. For example, it could take 30 months to deploy to all of the AFSS�s at a rate of two facilities a month. Enroute�s 21 facilities could take 4-5 years based on past experience.

The end story is that a more sterile corporate view is being done that appears focus more on the equipment and less on ATC option du jour. I prefer this, since it realistically addresses the needs of Flight Service from a technical perspective and in line with the rest of the NAS. I think it�s just cleaner business.
 

   FEDERAL TSP: TOO RESTRICTIVE, BUT WORKABLE

By Paul Merriman,

CBS.MarketWatch.com, Quotes & News

October 15, 2003

SEATTLE (CBS.MW) -- You think your retirement plan is limited? Try being a government employee.

Millions of investors work for the federal government and save part of every paycheck in what�s known as the Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP. Although technically it's not a 401(k) plan, it operates as if it were.

Numerous readers have asked us to recommend how they can best use the TSP options. The bad news is there aren�t many good investment choices in this plan -- which will serve as an excellent example for others who also find themselves in restrictive and limited plans.

Amazingly, only five investment options are available to the millions of people who make our country work.
The G Fund invests in very-short-term Treasury securities specially issued for this plan. This is equivalent to a high-yield stable value fund, and there is no risk of loss. By law, the interest paid by this fund is equal to the average rate of return on outstanding Treasury securities with four or more years to maturity. There is no ticker symbol for the G Fund.

The F Fund uses high quality securities to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate bond index. It will perform similarly to the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund (VBMFX).

The C Fund (think "C" for common stocks) invests in a Barclays index that tracks the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. In other words, this invests in very-large-cap U.S. stocks. It will behave similarly to S&P 500 Index funds such as Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX).

The I Fund (think "I" for international stocks) invests in the Barclays EAFE Index fund, which tracks large companies in 21 countries in Europe, Australia and the Far East. It will perform similarly to the IShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund (EFA).

The S Fund (think "S" for small stocks) invests in a Barclays fund that tracks the Wilshire 4500 Index. This is made up of the largest U.S. stocks minus those in the S&P 500 Index. This is essentially a mid-cap blend fund. It will perform similarly to the Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund (VEXMX).

That�s it. No value funds for any size U.S. or international stocks. No international small-cap funds either.
Many combinations of these five funds could be put together, and we�ve come up with four Model Portfolios that should meet most peoples� needs.

To choose one of these plans, investors must know what rate of return they need and what level of risk is appropriate for them. This is a tricky determination and worth taking to a financial advisor.

Our Conservative Portfolio calls for putting 40 percent each in the F and G funds and the remaining 20 percent into equity funds: 8 percent in I and 6 percent each in C and S. This allocation is suitable for investors who are close to retirement or have already retired and who care much more about hanging onto their money than about having it grow.

Our Moderate Portfolio attempts to approximate the allocation of traditional pension funds. It calls for 20 percent each into the F and G funds, 18 percent each into C and S and the remaining 24 percent into the I Fund. This allocation is suitable for many long-term investors, including those with five or more years before retirement. It can also be viewed as a default portfolio for those who can�t make up their minds.

Our Aggressive Portfolio is for investors who are 10 or more years away from retirement. It calls for 24 percent each in the C and S funds, 32 percent in the I Fund and 10 percent each in the F and G funds. The 20 percent in fixed-income funds provides a moderate buffer against the volatility of the stock market.

Finally, our More Aggressive Portfolio is for employees who want to pull out the stops and "go for it." This all-equity combination pursues growth without regard to volatility. It should be the favorite of young investors and those with 15 to 20 or more years to go before they expect to need the money. The allocation is 30 percent each in the C and S funds and 40 percent in the I fund.

The following table sums up these recommendations along with the average annualized returns and worst 12 month loss we expect each of them to produce. These are expectations based on historical data -- not guarantees or even predictions... Also, we show the returns for this year through September.

While this plan doesn�t give investors enough tools to attain optimum diversification, it has some virtues. For one thing, it�s simple. For another, it includes both U.S. and international stocks and, at least in the U.S., a large-cap offering as well as a mid-cap to small-cap offering.

We think federal employees should have more choices. Specifically, we think the government should offer a small-cap international fund, a large-cap U.S. value fund and a U.S. small-cap value fund. Perhaps if enough participants in the plan request these options, they can be added.

Our recommendations for this plan, along with suggestions for further reading, can be found online at www.401khelp.com/tsp/, and educational Website maintained by my firm, Merriman Capital. This site also has a link to the government�s own site.

These suggested portfolios may be useful guides for the best way to use any 401(k) plan that has very limited options.

Almost every plan will have at least a choice of fixed-income and equity funds. Allocating among those two classes is the most important decision an investor is likely to make -- and what we�ve said here about that should apply regardless of what specific investment options are contained in any plan.

Paul Merriman is founder of Merriman Capital Management in Seattle, and is editor and publisher of FundAdvice.com. Paul recently completed a four and a half hour DVD titled "Ten Steps to a Perfect Retirement Portfolio." He answers readers� questions on a variety of mutual fund topics that might help other fund investors in similar situations. Please e-mail us on topics for future column consideration. Paul also has a busy workshop schedule.
 

    OPINION

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.

A Letter to the Administrator

Michael F. Mc Anaw, Past President of NAATS

Dear Ms. M. Blakey:

I am returning your survey in the same manner that FAA management has treated their Flight Service employees. Shredded. I have been filling these things out since 1977, and the FAA has yet to make any changes to Flight Service. Flight Service is treated like an unwanted third stepchild.

Now to the survey: My Attitude: Is real poor! But that doesn�t matter to FAA HQ.

Reasons:

1) FSS Pay Negotiations. From Jane Garvey, Monty Belger, and Ron Morgan all promised to treat Flight Service employees the same as Tower and center employees. Management said "Let us deal with the NATCA contract first," we did, and management gave away the farm to NATCA. To this day there�s no money in the FAA budget except for NATCA pay! Ron Morgan promised to do our contract in the principles of Interest Based bargaining, we even went to FAA training to do this, both management and union. Before the first article could be discussed, Ray Thoman�s office squashed that because his office would be just a support role. As we know Ray can�t be second fiddle.

2) Flight Service Staffing. There is none, Bill Jeffers (AT-1) promised me 2684 Flight Service employees. He would hold the line there. Well Mr. Jeffers retired and no one since has honored that promise.

3) Possible Furloughs. Anytime there�s a budget crisis in the FAA, the FAA threatens furloughs, and always the FAA says nonessential personnel, which include Flight Service employees, will be furloughed. Flight Service was essential during the Controller Strike, the Hurricane in Florida, the Floods in the Midwest, earthquakes in the west, and of course, pick a disaster and you will find that the Flight Service Controller was still helping the flying public.

4) 2003 COLA from the FAA Administrator. You said that you were going to give Towers, Centers, FAA HQ, and Regional office employees 2% for meeting the agencies goals in 2002. So what your saying is that Flight Service employees didn�t meet FAA�s goals. What goals? You weren�t in your office four months. How would you know if any of the FAA met any goals? Who told you, these branches made agency goals, Ray Thoman, Monty Belger, Bill Peacock?

5) A-76. This one is simple; the FAA can finally get rid of Flight Service. This study is a real morale builder, especially the younger Flight Service Controllers.

6) FAA Headquarters. Until there is a change in the FAA HQ, there won�t be a fair shake for what Flight Service does for AVIATION Safety.

These are the issues that drive the attitude of Flight Service Controllers. If you want to feel the frustration of your employees in Flight Service, come down from the tenth floor and spend a day in a couple Flight Service Stations across the country (without your staff). Listen to us talk to the pilots on the telephones and radios, watch what we go through in a day, then say that Flight Service should be contracted out!

Sincerely

Michael F. Mc Anaw
Flight Service Controller SEA AFSS
Former President of NAATS

From the EAS Comments Page

Elinormarie L. Morrissy, Editor

After over 20 years with the FAA I have finally concluded, when it comes to the management of the agency, that the inmates are now in charge of the asylum. There are several factors that led to this conclusion.

First, the agency now bills itself as a "Performance Based Organization" (PBO) while providing performance incentives only to managerial employees. In true top-down management style, the agency�s top brass has decided that it�s the Manager who makes or breaks the organization rather than the employees who do the actual work of serving the public.

Second, despite its stated mission to provide for "the safe, orderly and expeditious movement of air traffic," this agency continues to promote to senior rank individuals whose sole focus is their own rise up the career ladder and who, in service of that only goal, are willing to play "yes man" to whichever political appointee holds the Administrator�s office. This lack of commitment t the FAA�s core mission to protect the safety of flight has led deterioration of key hardware components of the National Airspace System and to critical staffing levels at many air traffic control facilities.

Third, the FAA continues to pursue outmoded promotion standards that simply encourage people to "fill in the boxes" by taking only agency-sponsored training while working through a series of administrative functions that, in many cases, do not significantly add to the individual�s job skills. The main function of many of these staff jobs seems to be indoctrination of people into the agency�s political culture.

Fourth and most telling is the agency�s willingness to allow its field facilities to suffer neglect rather than face the reality that the FAA has grown grossly top heavy at both the Headquarters and Regional levels. In today�s age of high speed data transfer using computers and faxes, we continue to support NINE FAA Regional Offices. While the Administrator prattles on about efficiency and cost effectiveness, we all labor under the burdensome expense of 9 Regional Administrators� salaries, 9 Deputy Regional Administrator salaries, 9 Regional Office buildings and various Division and Branch management posts -- all multiplied by 9. All this continues, despite the fact that the mission would be better carried out by 4 or fewer Regions, at an estimated savings of $100 million. This is money that could go into upgrading critical ATC systems.

More money is being wasted on the A-76/AMS (No one, including ACA-1, seems to be certain which it is.) study of Flight Service. Again, this is money that could be better spent on equipment and personnel in the field. This is especially important in light of the fact that Ms. Kansier (ACA-1) and Administrator Blakey have yet to address the critical issue of how prospective FAA contractors� backgrounds would be checked to ensure they have no ties to terrorist organizations.

Overall, the leadership of this agency should be ashamed of the poor stewardship they have provided in alleged service of our nation�s interests.

I�m curious to see what part, if any, of my comments actually survives to be included in the Survey Report. Knowing the corporate culture of the FAA, I sincerely doubt anyone in the upper echelon of this agency�s management will ever read them.

I don�t believe the FAA is really interested in making the necessary changes to become more effective in today�s world, because it would first require the Administrator and her advisors to critically evaluate this agency as a whole entity.

Sadly for us all, it�s much easier and more politically expedient to sell off our air traffic control system piecemeal when our leadership knows full well they�ll no longer be in responsible positions when the inevitable breaches of safety and national security begin to happen.

Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.

-- Captain A. G. Lamplugh
British Aviation Insurance Group, London.
Circa early 1930's.

THE MONTHLY RANT

Gregory McGann, RDU AFSS

The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. � Robert Oppenheimer

Well, we have a new procedure, in the Southern Region at least, on how to handle Sporting Event TFR�s and their impact on adjacent airports -- basically, it ain�t our job. Yup, it�s completely up to the pilot to determine if he can operate VFR into and out of a particular airport, even though it would only take a minute or two of effort for us to provide him with this information.

FDC 3/1862 prohibits all flight below 3,000 within a 3 NMR of a covered event. No aircraft can operate out of an airport within the 3 NMR radius without a discreet squawk and 2-way communication with ATC. This seems like pretty standard stuff, but it�s more complicated than that. When planning you flight you have to know several things You have to do some homework. Let�s use Pitt-Greenville, NC (PGV) as an example.

First, you have to find out if there is a school near there, and there is -- East Carolina University. Then you have to determine if they have a stadium that meets the criteria. Luckily, there is a web site that lists the relevant stadiums, although without the associated cities or airports. Checking www.faa.gov/ats/ata /waiver/stadiums.cfm we find out that it does, but it doesn�t tell us if it affects PGV. We have to go to MapQuest or somewhere similar and plot it for ourselves. Is the airport within 3 nautical miles of the stadium? Stadiums are not depicted on aeronautical charts. A little digging and we find that it is only two miles from the airport. Now we know that a football game at Pirate Stadium will affect PGV, but when are they playing? We can check newspapers and sports sites, and we should be able to discover the dates for the home games, and the game time. Finally, we have enough information to know that this Saturday, from 12:30 pm until 6:30 pm, we cannot operate VFR into and out of PGV without squawk and talk.

How can anyone in the business of aviation safety think that this is not something the tie-in AFSS should be aware of? Apparently they think we shouldn�t, from the Administrator right down to our local management. All they want us to do is read the text of FDC 3/1862 during the briefing and our butts are covered. Anything else is the pilot�s responsibility.

Here at RDU another journeyman and I spent an afternoon plotting the stadiums in North Carolina. We discovered four that affected airports, although only two really matter because one of the airports is towered, so by definition any aircraft is under ATC Control, and the other is in controlled airspace as well. There is also a professional stadium, but smack in the middle of Class B airspace, again under ATC Control. This leaves PGV and IGX.

How hard would it be to determine the dates and times for home games at these two places? Maybe an hour or two, tops, yet it took four months last year to get our management and sups to agree to this. How much more time would it take to post a notice in the daily SIA when there is a game? Maybe a minute or two, but we have yet to get management to agree to this. It looked like it was going to be better this year with the requirement for pointer NOTAMs, but we had supervisors refuse to issue the NOTAMs unless the authority for the airspace called and told them to. We did get them to post a schedule of home games, but not the times, and not any kind of heads-up on game day.

Now the FAA has done away with the pointer NOTAMs. This is pretty shaky from a legal standpoint. The 7930.2H is pretty clear, not only on what qualifies as a NOTAM, but also on what constitutes "publishing" a NOTAM. A web page does not fall under the definition of publish, and the stadium web page doesn�t relate it to an airport anyway. We have ended up in the rather unique position of having an airport essentially closed to VFR traffic under the threat of an intercept and a shoot-down, and that information is not required to be disseminated to anyone for no better reason than sheer laziness.

Is this really as the best of all possible worlds? I for one will continue to keep track of covered games, even though I have no real interest in college football. I do, however, have an interest in aviation safety, which lets me tell my wife, with a straight face and sincerity in my voice, "Really, honey, it�s my job to watch ESPN."
 

 NAATS
2004 NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

April 07 -- April 08, 2004

Monte Carlo Resort and Casino

3770 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, NV 89109

Reservations Phone: 800-311-8999 or 702-730-7000

Room Rate - $79.00 single/double occupancy

Group Code - XNAATS4 w One night�s deposit needed

Cancellation -- 48 hours prior to arrival w Block of rooms will be released 03/15/04

Board of Directors Meeting -- April 5, - April 6, 2004

Facility Rep Training -- April 6, 2004

Reception -- April 7, 2004

Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines offers up to 10% off most (Southwest does not discount government or promotional fares) fares for air travel to and from the National Meeting, with the convenience of Ticketless Travel! To qualify, call Southwest Airlines Group and Meetings Reservations at 800-433-5368 and reference ID CODE -- G0245. Reservations Sales Agents are available 7:00 a.m. -- 8:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, or 8:30 a.m. -- 5:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, Central Standard Time.

Travel dates are anytime starting March 31, 2004 and ending April 14, 2004.
 

 FEDERAL EMPLOYEE NEWS

Brought to you by FedWeek.com

FEHB Rates Rising Again

Enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program will experience an average premium increase of 10.6 percent in 2004, marking the fourth straight year of increases in double-digit territory. As in prior years, increased utilization and medical inflation are responsible for most of the increase, officials said, making up 8.2 percentage points of the rise. Rising drug costs contributed another 3.3 percent, while the aging FEHB population drove premiums up by another 0.9 percent; the increases were partly offset by certain benefit changes, expected migration of enrollees to lower-cost plans and a slight drawdown of the program�s reserves. The average biweekly premium for actively employed executive branch enrollees will rise by $5.01 for self-only coverage to $50.21 and by $11.95 to $113.57 for self-and-family coverage; retirees pay at the same rate, only monthly, while active postal employees pay slightly lower rates. OPM officials called the rates good news, when compared to higher increases being experienced by other large employers. The open season for joining the program or switching plans or coverage levels runs November 10-December 8.

Choice Widening a Bit

The choices available in the FEHB in 2004 will widen somewhat, even though eight plans, with a total of about 17,000 enrollees, are dropping out. Seventeen plans will join the program, bringing the total to 205, eight health maintenance organizations will offer a second level of coverage and several HMOs are expanding their coverage areas. Most enrollees can choose among 11 national plans and varying numbers of HMOs. In addition, two carriers, Aetna and Humana, will begin offering a "consumer-driven" plan much like that introduced by the American Postal Workers Union for the 2003 plan year. Such programs feature an available pool of money, then a deductible, and then standard coverage -- under APWU�s plan, a fee-for-service program, and under the new Aetna and Humana plans, HMOs. The Aetna option will be available to about 1.5 million employees and retirees and the Humana option to about 500,000, with some overlap between the two.

Little Change in Benefits, Structure

Apart from the new offerings, changes in benefits for the 2004 FEHB plan year will be relatively minor. However, officials cautioned enrollees to check the plan information when it is made available to be informed of any changes in their plans. In addition, there will be few changes in the structure of benefits. In recent years, many plans have worked to hold down premiums by shifting costs to deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. But there is relatively little of that ahead for the 2004 plan year, officials said.

Regional Supplements

ALASKA REGION

CENTRAL REGION

EASTERN REGION

Ron Consalvo, Acting Director and Debbie Shea, Acting Coordinator

New FacReps

Congratulations to Carol McAteer, MIV FSS and Pat Earsley, BUF AFSS on there election to FacRep.
Looking Back on Summer 2003

As the summer traffic winds down I'm sure we�re all a little tired of not enough staffing and the FAA's treatment of FSS in general.

On the ISP front, we had another TRF the week of September 22 through September 30. Once again the Region and Washington expects FSS to deal with the increased work load created by the TFR while not allocating resources to do so.

During the course of that week the CPU at New York FSDPS went down. This left ISP and MIV without a Model 1. I would like to thank BUF FSS and everyone else who took MIV and ISP traffic for the few hours it took to reload the system.

Yes, ISP did use overtime and no the Region and Washington did not authorize the use of overtime outright. I find it bizarre that the FAA wants to get rid of FSS yet they depend on us to handle the abundance of traffic a TFR generates.

DCA has been dealing with the TRF issue for the past 2 years and while overtime has been used it's only a matter of time before we see a lot of controller burnout. What we need is staffing!!

When I see the resources necessary to deal with security measures imposed on the FAA by the Transportation Security Administration and the Secret Service I can't help but wonder.

Does the FAA really think a private company will meet the challenges of ever changing security measures within the air traffic system without demanding compensation for the added work load? My response to this is NO a private company is in business to make money.

However, the FAA is hell bent on finishing this A76 study and if they have their way privatizing FSS. Once again the FAA never listens to the voice of reason that voice being Pilots, FSS controllers, news reports on the deplorable condition of the air traffic systems in Canada and Europe. All the FAA sees is a quick fix to President Bush's call to privatize government.

Perhaps the FAA and President Bush should look at what privatization of other aspects of the government has accomplished. Privatization has not saved the government any money in fact most times privatization cost the government more money.

Unlike dedicated government employees a contractor will only do what they get paid to do no more no less. When a private company has a cost overrun due to a contract not fully accounting for everything employees in a job classification were responsible for doing that company comes back to the government and says "that wasn't in the contract and in order to do that task we need more money."

Hopefully we can win the A76 fight but we all know it's not a level playing field.
 

GREAT LAKES REGION

NEW ENGLAND REGION

NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION

SOUTHERN REGION

Tom Forte, Acting Director and Richard Anderson, Acting Coordinator

NAATS/FAA Quarterly: The Regional Quarterly was held on September 4th in Atlanta. We were briefed by several of the department heads on the current status of numerous projects including TODS, SUA/SIE, OASIS, NSTS, FIRMNET, and FAADDS. We then spent several hours discussing Regional Issues such as staffing, watch schedules, CIC duties and responsibilities, mid-watch staffing and runway incursion safety training. Though it comes as no surprise, not one of these issues was resolved at this meeting. The FAA seems to be taking full advantage of an administration in the white house that is hostile to the work force. After discussing several of these issues later in a phone conversation with the ASO-540 Manager, it seems that our only course of action will be to file the paperwork around these issues and allow the Grievance and ULP process to decide them.

Membership: Everyone that gets to know me soon realizes that I am big on Union Membership. How anyone can sit out there and let others make all of the sacrifices to save and protect our jobs is beyond me. It doesn�t matter if you don�t agree with everything that the union does or even if you don�t like one or two of us. The important thing is to support your coworkers in protecting our jobs. It�s a lousy $25 (+/- a couple of bucks) a payday. We need your support and more importantly, you need us to be able to continue the fight for all of our jobs. This includes you management and staff people as well. You can become an associate member and support us. See your local FacRep.

In Sympathy: The father of Richard Anderson (PIE) and Robert Anderson (GNV) passed away on Sunday, September 28th. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.

Around the Region:

ANB-Anniston AFSS: Anniston was the only AFSSs in the region to complete its Runway Incursion Training. Congrats to them.

BNA- Nashville AFSS: Submitted by Carroll Carter-Bermudez

OASIS: We are officially an OASIS facility as of September 23rd. Overall, everyone is adjusting well to the new system and discovering that it�s a great improvement over Model 1.

Retirement: We said our goodbyes and well wishes to our previous FACREP, Mike Ramsey, after 24 years of government service. A retirement party was held on September 30th where Mike was presented plaques from Dave Hoover and Tom Forte on behalf of NAATS, FacRep Bob Bermudez on behalf of the employees at BNA and by our ATM, Bob Coffee, on behalf of the FAA.

Awards: A 20 year service certificate and pin was presented to Carroll Carter-Bermudez and 25 year services certificates and pins were presented to Wayne Catt and Randy Michael. An Italian chicken dinner was cooked for all by our Chef (Chief) Bob Coffee. A cookout was also performed by our Chief to honor 30 years of service to our very capable secretary Patsy Hirlston.

Thanks to a great management and workforce we have no grievances in the works!!!

We have begun working on our 2004 schedule and look forward to bidding in November.

We also hope you will continue to think of our servicemen & women overseas and wish them a safe and expedient return.

LOU-Louisville AFSS: The MEO team visited LOU AFSS on September 23rd and briefed them on the latest information about the process. The LOU membership also met with MEO NAATS Representative Dave Hoover and NAATS Southern Region A-76 Representative Derek Buchanan.

MCN-Macon AFSS: How safe would you feel working around an employee who had been arrested for threatening to kill his girlfriend by pouring gasoline on her and setting her on fire, especially when the evidence was discovered by the police? How much trust or respect would you have for someone who did all of this in front of their 6-year old child? I imagine very little if any. However, Macon Management has decided that these charges are "no more than a speeding ticket" and therefore "no big deal" and no one should be concerned. You guessed it! The arrestee/accused is one of them. If it had been a bargaining unit member, not only would they have removed them from the building, they would have already begun processing them out of the FAA. Now, let�s ask those same questions again. How safe would you feel working for an employer who would protect someone who had been arrested for threatening to kill his girlfriend by pouring gasoline on her and setting her on fire? How much trust or respect would you have for an employer who would cover up for someone who did all of this in front of their 6-year old child? Once again, I imagine very little.

MKL-Jackson AFSS: The MEO team gave a briefing to the facility on September 30th. NAATS MEO Representative Dave Hoover and myself met with several of the members the night before the briefing for dinner.

MIA-Miami AIFSS: Miami Management scored extremely low on yet another Facility Evaluation. I guess those bi-monthly training sessions being provided by the region to teach them how to manage a facility aren�t working.

PIE-St. Petersburg AFSS: There has been a change in management. Shane Goldman is the acting ATM.

RDU-Raleigh-Durham AFSS: Submitted by Greg McGann.

It�s been a busy month, without much time for rumination. However, a recent rash of ELT alarms has made me wonder -- how is a contractor going to handle the expense?

Alarm technology has become common in the marketplace, but false alarms are the number-one problem. According to one study by the National Burglar & Fire Alarm Association (NBFAA) the rate of false alarms is over 40% for businesses, over 47% for homes, and over 85% for autos. This pales in comparison to the 98% false alarm rate for ELTs.

So what are they doing about it? Some cities and municipalities are instituting fines for owners who cause false alarms. A study by the International Chiefs of Police (IACP) shows that 80% of false alarm dispatches are triggered by only 20% of alarm users. The predictable result is that after a fine or two these users stop using the alarm and leave themselves vulnerable. It is reasonable to assume that many aircraft owners will remove or disable their ELT rather than risk a fine.

In some cities, police departments require all burglar alarm signals to be visually verified by a private citizen or their designee, such as a security guard, before police will respond. It isn�t hard to envision a private FSS corporation going to similar lengths before investing too much time and effort investigating what will almost certainly turn out to be a false alarm. Again, when cost is a factor, safety suffers.

There are other costs and disadvantages to the problems of false alarms. According to the Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC), some insurance companies are refusing to insure properties where this type of non-response policy is in effect. This causes problems for business owners, affects their loan rates, and tends to discourage alarm use. Home mortgage rates also suffer when the homeowner cannot obtain insurance, or is forced to pay a premium for it. The aviation industry is facing enough problems without adding an insurance burden. Pilots may be forced to choose between their ELT and their insurance policy, and it isn�t unlikely to assume that some insurance companies may give discounts for ELT�s, while others charge a premium.

Search and Rescue is one of the core functions of Flight Service, and whether it is retained by the MEO, shifted to a different governmental agency, or sold to a contractor, it will never be the same.

SJU-San Juan AFSS: The FacRep has been informed that unless his people "volunteer to work credit or comp time," they will not be allowed to send anyone to Flight Watch School. I�m sure there will be grievances, EEO complaints, letters to congressman, etc over this one.
 

SOUTHWEST REGION

JONESBORO AFSS NEWS

September 26, 2003

Mr. Steve Warnick
832 CR 444
Jonesboro, AR 72404

Dear Mr. Warnick:

It was good to meet you and discuss the outsourcing of the Federal Aviation Administration Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSS). I enjoyed your visit in my Jonesboro office and thank you for expressing your views on this matter.

As you know, on May 29 of this year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) finished its controversial rewrite of the privatization process, OMB Circular A-76. OMB has directed all government agencies to use this process in reviewing for privatization of federal jobs. This directive gives me grave concerns because it places federal employees at a significant disadvantage in maintaining government contracts.

I believe the services provided by AFSS are invaluable to maintaining the safety of the airways throughout the United States. These jobs are much too valuable to be contracted out to the highest bidder. The AFSS office in Jonesboro knows the people who fly in our area and are best equipped to service our state. These positions are inherently federal, and I will fight to keep these jobs where they are.

During recent consideration of the FY04 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill, Representative Chris Van Hollen offered an amendment to give OMB a second chance to rewrite the privatization process in a way that promotes the interests of taxpayers and customers while more equitably balancing the interests of federal employees and contractors. I proudly supported this amendment and am pleased to report that it passed by a vote of 220-198. While I still believe AFSS and Air Traffic Controller positions should remain federal positions, I believe this amendment is a step in the right direction towards reaching this goal.

Thank you again for contacting me on this issue. If I may be of further assistance to you on this or any further matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

/S/

MARION BERRY
Member of Congress

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION

Mike Stafford, Director and Mike Puffer, Coordinator

For those of you who have not been keeping track of our "relationship" with AOPA, I would like you take a look at some of Phil Boyer�s "President�s Column" writings (see http://www.aopa.org/prez/prespos). I am not going to paraphrase or quote his myopic vision of Flight Service and user fees, as I think by this time we all know where he and the AOPA organization stand on our A76 troubles. Throughout the A76 process, they have given us no significant support to try and prevent the travesty that is now occurring. There has been a lot of lip service and double talk by Boyer as to "it�s not really contracting out", etc. We all know this is crap -- the bottom line is he does not support Flight Service, or any other ATC option remaining an "inherently governmental" entity. He talks out both sides of his mouth very well -- a true politician. We don�t know what deals, if any, have been made with Blakey behind the scenes, nor at this point does it really matter. He has cut us loose to the contractor "wolves."

Because of his stance, I made a motion at the October NAATS Board of Directors meeting to discontinue our support for any AOPA functions, or publish any ads in their magazine. It passed, but to my surprise - barely. I cannot explain the rationale of those who did not support the motion. I suppose they think that it will somehow hurt the AOPA membership (which we DO support on a daily basis with our services). I just don�t buy it. Why should we continue to support an organization that clearly wants to see us contracted out? Hell if I know.

To be sure, our action is a token gesture. We will not significantly hurt the AOPA by not manning booths at their functions - but maybe by not being there, some of the honest hard-working members of the AOPA will start to ask Mr. Boyer why he is not vehemently fighting a process that will ultimately destroy the safest air traffic system in the world -- and cost them a lot of money in fees in the process.

HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS
Eli Morrissy, HHR AFSS

New FPLs

Jabali Person (DM) and Lazaro Arteaga (LA) are now fully qualified, becoming HHR�s newest FPLs. Congratulations!

More Congratulations

Kevin Bender (KB) successfully defended his Master�s Thesis on Temporary Flight Restrictions. This puts Kevin very near completion of a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Embry Riddle University. Way to go!

Congratulations also go out to Joe Blanco (BO) on the birth of his first grandchild, Isaiah. Ask him to see the pictures. As a doting grandpa, he�s got a bunch.

Still Waiting

So far nothing new on new controller chairs, Positive Access Control system or SUA/ISE equipment.

Wilbur, Is that You?

STACS Steve Shackleford (SS) has been playing the part of Wilbur Wright at various events on the west coast celebrating the upcoming centennial of powered flight on December 17th. He has also been an active participant in the construction of one of the two working replications of the aircraft the Wright Brothers successfully flew on that historic day. In addition to his duties at HHR, Steve is also a pilot and teaches Navigation and Meteorology at Long Beach City College.
 

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.