A-76 UPDATE

Kate Breen, A-76 Representative -- [email protected]

5/21/04 -- The last "vulture" visit was about the same as the other four no surprises. Thanks to the folks in SJT for showing their support by wearing the shirts, to Oscar Hinojosa for not only helping out with the tours but for opening his home for a union meeting one evening. It is always good to be able to sit down face to face with folks and talk about what�s going on. Jim Hale did the cooking and it was outstanding, he didn�t even make me eat armadillo or jack-a-lope, thanks Jim!!!

AFSS Conference Issues

Next up was the AFSS leadership conference, it was good to put both FacReps and managers in the same room to hear from the upper levels of management what was going on. Our folks came in prepared and ready to participate and ask questions and the others just came in. With the exception of a few that did participate, like the SUPCOM representative who put his update on their web page. The un-edited (what I mean by that is the content will not be edited, the tapes will be edited for dead time and camera angles only.) tapes will be out to the field shortly. There has already been a survey taken on what format the facilities want them DVD or VHS. I urge you all to take a look at them, my hope is once they get to the facility someone can maybe make a couple of copies so everyone can watch them before too much time passes. Along with the tapes are CDs for each employee, make sure when you get the CDs you have the right one for your situation. There is one retirement CD for CSRS and one retirement CD for FERS.

Other IOUs from the conference are the list of questions HR took back for the HR team to work and get back to you on. Well, we�re working them, but it�ll be another week or so before you get any answers. The HR web site is up and running please take a look at it and provide feed back either through the contact link or myself, I�ve tested it and the message actually goes to a person! The web site is www.faa.gov/ahr/competitive.cfm. I�ve only looked at it briefly, it has links to documents and other web sites along with some updated frequently asked questions. The one thing I would like to see added to the web page, to help people keep abreast of issues needing waivers or approvals, is something like the box below. Understand this is a rough sample of what I�m thinking, it isn�t real!

DRAFT/SAMPLE
 

It would be a quick look for folks to stay on top of issues and a check and balance for the HR office. This would ensure the commitment made by Ms. Gibson at the conference to help people through out this process actually happens. Let�s face it, it�s been known for quite some time now this competition was happening and these answers need to be settled so people can make decisions in their lives.

Help Me To Help You

One way you can help me and yourselves is to let me know if your regional HR offices are being responsive to your needs and questions. According to everyone in DC the regional offices are managing everything just fine.

HR Action Team

The HR Action Team is meeting twice a week, the Monday meetings I�m not allowed in because of discussion around the RIF negotiations. The Thursday meeting I do participate in and as issues unfold I�ll pass them along. The one thing that should be happening now/very soon is the review of your OPFs and letters updating you on the results. I�m sure it will take a while for all of you to receive letters so stay tuned.

Let�s switch gears and talk about the other side of the competition the requirements document that was released on May 3rd and other happenings in ACA. The pilot survey that was done a few months ago is now available for viewing on the ACA web site www.faa.gov/aca in its entirety. One of the items of discussion at the conference was the phase in period going from 6 months to 6-9 months. The clarification I got on that was the phase in period is still 6 months they will go to 9 months only if absolutely necessary.

GAO Ruling

There has been some e-mail traffic on the GAO ruling on unions standing to protest. That does not affect us, remember we are not protesting under GAO, but under ODRA the FAA�s Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. The ODRA procedural rules for contests of A-76 Competitions can be found on their web site www.faa.gov/agc/odra.

A great big thank you to George Kelley for all of his work a couple of weeks ago, I can�t say enough about this man. It wasn�t only the time and effort he put into it, he also wouldn�t accept a dime for any of the expenses. We are lucky to have such a dedicated, hard working man on our team.
That�s it for now, if you have any questions/comments you know where to find me!

6/15/04 -- Let me start off with updates from the Leadership Conference back in May. The unedited tapes/DVDs of the meeting should be at your facilities within the next day or so, I believe they got shipped out of FAA HQ at the end of last week. The retirement CDs you should have in your hands already, if you don�t see either one of these items by next week (6/25/04) please let me know and I�ll track them down. The HR website is up and running www.faa.gov/ahr/competitive.cfm if you have sometime to look at it and have ideas or suggestions on what else you�d like to see on it either let me know or send a message to 9-AWA-AHR-A-76. The list of questions taken from the meeting is still being worked on. The HR Action Team had me take the first two cuts at the answers and they didn�t like some of my answers so they HR folks are working on them and hopefully will post them on the above web site by middle to end of next week.

HR House in Order

I have been assured by HR nationally that both the national and regional HR offices have their resources and priorities in order so employees should start to receive more information. Let me say that just because I�ve been assured by HR nationally does not mean that I buy into it completely. There are a couple of issues that were supposed to be completed by 6/30/04 like the OPF reviews and a schedule of the field facility visits, those dates have slipped a month to 7/30/04. With everything going on standing up the ATO for Flight Service, HR going to shared service centers and planning for the largest RIF the FAA may have to do, it will be a miracle if these dates don�t slip again.

Questions & Answers

There have been a few topics I�ve discussed with people and sharing them may help answer some questions for you.

PL108-176

First up is Andrea Chay from SEA AFSS, she�s been asking about the PL 108-176 that would give ATCS 1.7% for "good time" even if you don�t have enough years and age for an immediate annuity, but at least 5 years of "good time" the time you have would be credited at 1.7% for the years you do have. In order for the law to be implemented, OPM needs to issue implementing regulations regarding deposit procedures for FERS employees. OPM has advised the agency that ATCS who must make a deposit to receive service credit cannot retire under this new law until the regulations are published. So here is the long and short of it, OPM is trying to change/appeal/kill this law, so as long as no "implementing regulations" are put in place it can�t be used, and there are no time limits on how long OPM would have to issue those regulations. They will hold it up while they try to kill it so don�t expect to take advantage of this particular law in the near future if at all.

Deferred Retirements

Next up is Tom Renkey from DCA AFSS, he asked about deferred retirements and severance pay. The HR website has a chart on it regarding retirements, on the last line it says:

If you are eligible for an immediate retirement and you elect to defer it, you will not receive severance pay. However, they are still working on the answer that should read if you are not eligible for an immediate annuity and you defer the retirement, you should be eligible for severance pay as well. I�m hoping to have a definitive answer on this by next week. At least that�s my take on it, thanks Tom for the input.

Remember if considering deferred retirement, you are not entitled to health and life insurance benefits. Also, I�d like to throw in a reminder about your TSP loans, if you have any outstanding, be aware of the process for repayment or penalty.

Sick Leave Buy Back

Last up is Richard Anderson from PIE AFSS. Richard talked about Article 29 Section 13, which talks about sick leave buy back for FERS. If you are not eligible for an immediate annuity 20/50 or 25 at any age, you will not have your sick leave bought back. So do not plan on that money if you do not have the "good time" and years for retirement, if a RIF happens you lose it.

Thanks to Andrea, Tom, and Richard for bringing up the issues. If you have any questions either send them to me or send them to 9-AWA-AHR-A76.

GE Stock Notice

There has been a little discussion this week also about a notice that was put in some mail boxes or in "read and initial" binders about GE stock and employees holding it need to get divest of all GE stock by 8/2/04. This has nothing to do with the competition/acquisition currently under way on us. If you went to the link on the notice, it takes you to the FAA�s employee notice of prohibited financial interests. In that it explains the reason for the memo "The General Electric Company is one of the world�s leading jet engine manufacturer and service provider. It is also a very prominent lessor of aircraft. With operations in more than 40 countries, the General Electric Company is a highly visible company in the aviation arena and is regularly included in published aviation industry stock performance lists." I hope that answers the questions on that issue.

Jim Washington should be coming out with a "Words From Washington" in the next few days on the ATO web site. 

   LIAISON UPDATES

Voice Switch Report

Steve Glowacki, ICS Representiave -- [email protected]

The NAS Voice Switching Program (NVS) is moving toward getting a Mission Need Statement (MNS) approved in the near future. The MNS acts as the framework from which the rest of the program will proceed. It helps define the range of alternatives, highlights the needed capabilities, and assesses the shortfalls and benefits relating to a program decision. From this, the Investment Analysis will begin, providing a closer scrutiny of the cost and schedule issues for each of the potential solutions. Hopefully the MNS will be finalized by the time you read this report (mid July).

One of the first documents after the MNS to be completed is the Requirements Document (RD). This key document defines "what" is needed at a high level. Often, as users of the equipment, we�re more familiar with "how" things are done i.e. how buttons act and look, exact procedures needed to accomplish a certain task, etc. The RD is the precursor; serving to focus on the higher level functionality and the interconnection to each other as different processes. Another document called a Specification will be written later to identify the "how�s."

To recapture, the current draft NVS initial requirements document or iRD, is the result of a lot of hard work by many people for more than a year. It represents the first time that the needed capabilities for all three ATC domains are being treated equally. It�s the result of many debates on many levels where we (I and a few management counterparts) refused to give up on the idea that Flight Service deserved equal treatment among the other domains.

I�d like to say, throughout the years, I�ve been very surprised at how ignorant many FAA employees are of the role Flight Service shares in the ATC arena. I think all of us as FAA employees have a responsibility to the public to possess more than a layman understanding of one of this organization�s primary infrastructures -- Air Traffic Control. Along with regulation and certification, it�s our �bread-n-butter" service to the public. Without a constant reminder from representatives like myself and independent-minded members of management, I think we would have been left behind and forgotten... as far as voice switching goes, at least. Now that we�re represented with our own line of service, I�ve noticed a change in the tide. All we have to do is resolve the A76 issue and I think a future of unity among the ATC domains might be possible.

HEADSETS

I read a comment from one of the Alaskan reps that they "were forgotten again" regarding the distribution of Headset Testers. I�d like to set the record straight that this was not the case... at least not from the HQ level. From the beginning, all facilities were to receive their own HS Tester, including the non-automated facilities in Alaska -- all paid for by FAA HQ. This is what was arranged.

As crazy as it may sound, it was the Alaskan Regional office (500�s) that said they didn�t see the need for their non-automated facilities to have these HS Testers. Remember, this was a free gift that would provide an immediate indication of the working status of the headset�s noise-limiting circuitry. Unfortunately, FAA HQ can�t force the regional offices into accepting things, so only three were sent for the Alaskan AFSSs. Alaskan reps should query their own region for this one. Even after the Convention when we asked again, your region still said "no thank you."

IN CLOSING

I�d like to point out that this is my last report to you as your National Technical Representative for Voice Switching. I�ve been doing this for a little while (over 4 years) and have learned a lot from those I�ve worked with. I�d like to take a moment to thank a few people.

First, I want to extend a sincere personal gratitude to Wally Pike and Bill Dolan for their kind guidance and mentoring. I know Wally has said he believes there�s always someone coming in from behind who can do any of our jobs (here at HQ) just as well, if not better. Maybe he�s right, but in both of their cases, I think that�s clearly a tall order. They�ve set the bar pretty high.

Thanks, also to Donna Holmes, Kate Breen, Scott Malon, and the rest of the Washington crew from the last years for being there. I�m proud to say I worked with all of you. I�d like to thank Ron Maisel for his believing in my abilities, even when I may not have. For anyone who thinks I�ve done a good job, Ron was the one who saw it first.

Also, to those members of management who have shared the vision with me -- you know who you are and I want to thank you for your friendship and support. If it�s not obvious, a representative can�t be successful without having good relationships with good people.

Finally, I�d like to thank my wife for the love and patience that she gave in supporting me (and NAATS) throughout all the craziness. Her support has clearly been part of the equation for any of my successes. I think there are a lot of spouses out there that deserve our gratitude.

   NAV CANADA�S BID TO RAISE FEES DRAWS FIRE

By John Partridge, The Globe and Mail, May 13, 2004

Nav Canada, which operates the country's air traffic control system, said yesterday that it needs to raise its service charges by an average of 7.9 per cent, drawing immediate condemnation from Air Canada and other critics.

The Ottawa-based company, created when the federal government decided to privatize air traffic control, said it needs the increases -- which are to begin taking effect Aug. 1 -- in order to break even in 2004-2005 as well as "in order to provide safe and reliable air navigation services."

Nav Canada said that the rate hike will translate to increases ranging from 74 cents on a one-way ticket from Calgary to Edmonton to $1.69 for a one-way Montreal-to-Vancouver flight.

"We have done our utmost to generate non-aeronautical revenue and control costs while meeting our safety and service obligations," Nav Canada president John Crichton said. "This proposal is a last resort required to ensure a safe and reliable air navigation system going forward."

However, Air Canada condemned the move, saying it will be the third hike in less than two years and brings the total increase in fees during that period to 19 per cent.

Calling the "escalating" fees out of touch with industry realities, Air Canada spokeswoman Laura Cooke said the company, which is in bankruptcy protection, figures the latest increase will add about $24-million a year to its operating costs.

"As Air Canada has been successful at significantly lowering operating costs, it is unconscionable to see Nav Canada fees and surcharges continue unabated on an unsustainable, upward spiral," she said, adding that Air Canada will urge other domestic and international airlines to voice their concerns.

Fred Lazar, a professor of economics at York University and a critic of Ottawa's air transportation policies said the key problem is that when Ottawa established Nav Canada it imposed the requirement that the company balance its budget. "It was a stupid model set up with a ridiculous balanced budget rule. The government never thought it through."

   OSHA UPDATE

George Kelley, OHSECCOM Representative, [email protected]

OSHA, the Contract & You

The Federal Government, when acting as an employer, is bound by both public law and executive order to insure a safe and healthy workplace for all its employees. Additionally, all Flight Service controllers are covered by the Occupational Safety and Health provisions of our contract. Article 87 of the NAATS/FAA Agreement provides both general guidelines and specific requirements for protecting the workplace environment.

Article 87, the FAA agrees to make every reasonable effort to provide and maintain safe and healthy working conditions. The FAA must take into consideration such factors as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, air quality, lighting conditions, and water quality, as well as all applicable OSHA standards for general industry as outlined in 29 CFR Part 1910. All these factors must be considered regardless of whether the station is government owned or leased, and also applies to any government provided housing facilities.

In addition to the general OSHA guidelines, the contract mandates certain specific provisions for all Flight Service facilities. Did you know that, at facilities taking weather observations, the FAA shall provide protective clothing and sunglasses for the weather observer? Did you know that management shall supply and replenish fully-stocked first aid kits and insure that these kits are accessible 24 hours a day? Did you know that each facility must provide annual fire evacuation reviews for all employees and provide training in the use of fire extinguishers? Did you know that management shall establish a program to train and certify (Red Cross or equivalent accrediting agency) employees in first aid and CPR? Did you know that the FAA must maintain Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals stored and used within your facility? Did you know that management shall test your station�s drinking water at least every three years for contaminants and, if it does not meet EPA standards, must provide bottled or other potable water? Did you know that indoor air quality concerns, including mold, mildew, chemical contamination, and "sick building syndrome" shall be investigated, using independent industry standards? Did you know that the FAA shall inspect and conduct airborne testing for asbestos at least every six months in facilities containing friable asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) and in stations where ACBMs are likely to become friable? And did you know that, if employees are exposed to asbestos levels equal to or greater than OSHA limits, the FAA shall pay for medical surveillance of these employees? Article 87 spells out all of these provisions.

All employees have the responsibility to promote and maintain a safe and healthy work environment. The greatest burden, however, falls on FAA management to insure that all OSHA and EPA standards are met. Using industry guidelines, public law, FAA directives, and the NAATS/FAA Agreement, labor and management can work together to keep all our people safe.

   TECH CORNER: VISIBILITY

Gregory McGann, RDU AFSS

Greg McGann, RDU FacRep

Over the last 6 or 8 years I have filed numerous UCR�s over dangerous changes to aviation weather policy, practices, and equipment. Most have been denied or ignored, but I thought perhaps you would like to see a few of them. In this column I�ll try to share some of the unsafe conditions I have found over the years.

The safe operation of aircraft depends in part on timely and accurate weather data being provided to pilots. Weather is a primary cause of half of all general aviation accidents, and over 80% of all fatal accidents. For almost 70 years there have been rules and regulations that set forth certain weather criteria for the safe operation of aircraft under both Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules (VFR.) Part 91.155 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR�s) define the basic VFR weather minimums required to operate an aircraft in the United States under Visual Flight Rules. The FAR states "no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less -- than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace." This visibility minimum is 3 statute miles, and has been the standard since the FAR�s were written.
For this visibility minimum to be relevant to aviation we must define what we mean by "visibility." The Airman�s Information Manual (AIM) defines visibility as follows:

VISIBILITY [US AND ICAO]- The ability, as determined by atmospheric conditions and expressed in units of distance, to see and identify prominent unlighted objects by day and prominent lighted objects by night.

This definition is further subdivided into Flight Visibility, Ground Visibility, Prevailing Visibility, Runway Visibility Value (RVV), and Runway Visual Range (RVR.) The relevant definitions are for Flight Visibility and Ground Visibility.

Flight Visibility [US]- The average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

Flight Visibility [ICAO]- The visibility forward from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight.

Ground Visibility [US]- Prevailing horizontal visibility near the earth�s surface as reported by the United States National Weather Service or an accredited observer.

Ground Visibility [ICAO]- The visibility at an aerodrome as reported by an accredited observer.

Most aircraft accidents happen during the takeoff and landing phases of flight. At these times, the aircraft is operating in close proximity to the earth�s surface, and thus the flight visibility and the ground visibility will be essentially the same. The key point in these definitions is that the visibility on the ground is reported by an observer and the flight visibility is obviously reported by a pilot. What is also obvious, although it is not stated explicitly, is that when the definitions mention "visibility" and objects being seen and identified they are speaking about human eyes performing the "seeing" and human beings performing the "identifying." Since the whole purpose of a weather observation is to provide the pilot with information necessary to conduct a safe and legal flight under the appropriate regulations, only visibility that is representative of what the human eye can see and identify is relevant.

Of course, the human eye is far from perfect and is subject to many limitations. According to Air Traffic Bulletin (ATB) 98-1 published by ATA-10 of the Federal Aviation Administration, "light scattering, sun angle, altitude, and individual visual acuity all affect the ability to �see� in the atmosphere." One of the most significant conditions affecting the human eye is that of bright backscattered light, which sharply reduces visibility. From ATB 98-1:

"These conditions usually occur during the daytime when clouds, fog, light snow, flurries, or light drizzle reflects sunlight in the atmosphere. It is comparable to the headlights of your automobile shining into the fog or snow. The brightly reflected light may blind you and limit your visibility. Yet the lights of an approaching vehicle seem to penetrate the fog; you can see the approaching vehicle further into the fog. The visibility difference is caused because the headlights of your vehicle are reflected back toward your eyes while the approaching vehicle�s light is scattered toward you (forward scattered)."

This description is accurate, and conditions such as those described do have the effect of reducing human visibility. During the takeoff and landing phases of flight the visibility seen by the pilot and the visibility seen by the observer on the ground will be almost identical. The same conditions that limit the visibility of the pilot limit the visibility of the observer, thus the visibility reported by the ground observer will be representative of the visibility experienced by the pilot. A comparison of the two visibilities could be considered an "apples to apples" comparison, but unfortunately, the situation we have moved to at most airports across the country is now resulting in an "apples to oranges" comparison.

Over the last several years the human weather observers have been replaced by the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS.) Concurrent with the implementation of ASOS, many of the accepted terms, definitions, and procedures associated with aviation weather and aviation weather observing have been modified to take into account the limitations of the automated system. For example, ASOS is unable to identify "thin" or transparent clouds and reports all cloud layers as opaque, so the reporting of thin clouds has been disallowed.

When it comes to visibility, we find that the fifth edition of Federal Meteorological Handbook No. 1 (FMH-1), "Surface Weather Observations and Reports," which embodies the United States conversion to the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) Aviation Routine Weather Report/Aviation Selected Special Weather (METAR/SPECI,) code formats, has a new definition of "visibility" which differs from the ICAO definition and the US definition in the AIM.

visibility. The greatest horizontal distance at which selected objects can be seen and identified or its equivalent derived from instrumental measurements.

This new definition has added a phrase to the accepted wording -- "or its equivalent derived from instrumental measurements" -- that constitutes a significant change to long-standing practice. It now allows an instrumental measurement to substitute for the observation of a human as long as it is "equivalent." Allowing this "equivalent" observation in an area as critical to aviation safety is questionable at best, but the real key here hinges on the "equivalence" of these automated observations. Webster�s dictionary provides the following definition.

equivalent 1 :equal in force, amount or value 2 : like in signification or import 3 : corresponding or virtually identical.

By any logical definition, the intent of the term "equivalent" as used in the definition of visibility is that the instrumental measurement by which the visibility is determined should be "virtually identical" to the observation made by the human eye. The observations made by the ASOS, according to the National Weather Service, are not  identical to the observations made by a human. ATB 98-1 states: "At any one airport, at any one time, a manual observation, and automated observation, and a pilot report may be startlingly different."

According to ATB 98-1 "the visibility sensor does not directly measure how far one can �see,� instead it measures the clarity of the air." "ASOS employs a forward-scattered visibility meter to measure the clarity of the air. The system cants the transmitter and receiver at a small angle, preventing direct light from striking the receiver. ASOS projects light in a cone-shaped beam. The receiver measures only the light scattered forward."

In other words, the ASOS has been designed to overcome the limitations of the human eye. By restricting the sensor to measuring only forward-scattered light the ASOS is not subject to the backscattered light that "sharply reduces visibility." The result is an "apples to oranges" comparison, because the whole reason for making the observation is to inform the pilot how far he can expect to see. The distance the ASOS can see is irrelevant.

For example, if a person goes to an eye doctor for an examination the goal is to receive a prescription for eyeglasses that correct the problem. Taking along a pair of binoculars may allow the person to read the eye chart without the limitations imposed by his or her visual acuity, but it does nothing to accomplish the objective. An automated system designed to derive a visibility value equivalent to the human eye that is also designed to overcome the limitation of the human eye is fundamentally flawed and will not accomplish the design objective.

ASOS converts a sensor-derived value of clarity to a visibility corresponding to what the human eye would see in conditions where the human eye perceives only forward-scattered light. "At night, human observers seek distant lights to measure visibility. The human observer is using forward-scattered light, the same principle applied by the ASOS sensor. Therefore visibilities tend to match more closely between observers and ASOS at night."

During the day, we can expect the ASOS visibility to differ from the visibility observed by the human eye because of backscattered light, and in fact the NWS acknowledges that this difference exists. According to ATB 98-1: "Research has shown the visibility difference under these conditions between forward-scattered and backscattered light is 2:1, and remember, the ASOS receiver measures only the light scattered forward." (Italics theirs.)

"If conditions are bright enough for a pilot or a controller to use sunglasses, you can expect the automated systems to report visibility approximately twice what the human eye perceives -- If an ASOS observation reports a 4 mile visibility, you can expect a report of around 2 miles by a human observer." (Italics theirs.)

This acknowledgement of the 2:1 discrepancy proves that the ASOS system is not operating in accordance with even the new definition of visibility that was created to allow automated observations. The definition requires a human eye visibility or its equivalent, and ASOS does not  meet this standard. The result is that we are allowing pilots to operate under Visual Flight Rules in conditions that would make such operation illegal if a human observer were present.

The FAA and NWS are themselves guilty of violating the FAR�s concerning visibility minimums. All visibility standards, from the basic values governing IFR and VFR flight to the more stringent guidelines for instrument approaches, are based on the visibility as perceived by the human eye. By using an instrumental method that often coverts an arbitrary measure of "clarity" to a value twice what a human eye perceives they are allowing dangerous and unsafe operations to occur. Aircraft operating under the VFR standard of 3 miles human visibility may now operate with 3 miles of ASOS visibility, or 1 � miles human visibility. Aircraft shooting a precision instrument approach requiring a human visibility of � mile are now allowed to shoot the approach with only � mile visibility.

I cannot stress strongly enough that arguments contending that ASOS derived visibility values are consistent and correct are not only irrelevant but detrimental to aircraft safety. If the ASOS visibility is not equivalent to human visibility it is dangerous! The design of the ASOS visibility sensor overcomes the limitations of the human eye, but rather than being a benefit this is a flaw. The goal of instrumental measurements of visibility should be the equivalence of human and instrumentally derived values. Any system that overcomes the limitations of the human eye is useless in measuring the perceptions of the human eye, and the sole reason for the existence of these measurements is to inform pilots of the conditions their eyes can see.

This discrepancy between ASOS and human visibilities is almost unknown outside the NWS. It has not been widely publicized meaning that the vast majority of pilot briefers, and virtually all pilots, are unaware of it. The result is a dangerous and unsafe situation that requires an immediate remedy. The potential for this situation to cause or contribute to a fatal accident cannot be ignored.

On May 4, 2000 I filed a UCR concerning the visibility discrepancies exhibited by the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS.) I received a notice in November that the UCR was closed on August 28, 2000 by ARW1. I believe that this action was unwarranted and the reasoning presented for closing the UCR is invalid. The reasons I believe that the action was incorrect are as follows:

The memorandum closing the UCR referenced and defended the ASOS program in general, while the complaint was a specific one dealing with a documented and acknowledged flaw. For example, the memorandum contains the following paragraph:

"There has been an ongoing government commitment since the early 1970�s to automate surface visibility. Experiments jointly conducted by FAA and NWS, e.g., "Automate Visibility -- Automated Weather Observation System," and the demonstration programs in the 1980�s have shown that it is practical to automate surface visibility and to output a report that is suitable and responsive to the needs of the aviation community."⁽¹⁾

This paragraph is straight out of the ASOS Users Guide, dating from April 1992. I hardly think it appropriate to respond to technical criticism of a system by quoting promotional material from the system guide itself. That is analogous to responding to criticism of Firestone tires by quoting a Firestone brochure. There is also a reference to a study conducted by the Hughes STX Corporation that concludes the ASOS system is reliable. Not withstanding the fact that the study is another case of a vendor validating their own product, an analysis of the study shows that the data have been combined to put a favorable spin on the outcome. While the degree of correlation between the ASOS and human observers is acceptable overall, the degree of correlation declines as the weather worsens, a familiar and disturbing ASOS trend. For example, when the visibility was greater than five miles the ASOS and the human observer agreed 99.8% of the time, but when the visibility was less than one quarter of a mile the percentage of agreement was 0%.⁽²⁾

The memorandum goes on to say that "For VFR operations, ASOS had a higher probability than a human observer of having more successful positive impacts with, as an example, 1.4% more aircraft landings and 1.5% more departures." I find this statement disturbing. When did our focus shift from safe operations to more operations? The fact that the automated system allowed pilots to operate in conditions that a human observer deemed unsafe is not a benefit, especially considering the fact that the ASOS visibility discrepancy is an acknowledged problem. Once again, I reference ATB 98-1:

"Research has shown the visibility difference under these conditions between forward-scattered and backscattered light is 2:1, and remember, the ASOS receiver measures only the light scattered forward.

"If conditions are bright enough for a pilot or a controller to use sunglasses, you can expect the automated systems to report visibility approximately twice what the human eye perceives -- If an ASOS observation reports a 4 mile visibility, you can expect a report of around 2 miles by a human observer."⁽³⁾

Finally, the memorandum states that the problem has already been resolved and references a version of the ASOS guide originally written in June 1992 that is obsolete and in error. For example, a version of the guide dated June 1993 states that the term "AO2" means that the ASOS is unattended.(4) This is now incorrect, as the term "AUTO" means an unattended installation. "A02" now means that the site does not have a precipitation discriminator. The guide also indicates that all ASOS installations are equipped with three visibility sensors, when in fact only the initial ASOS validation sites had three sensors. Once the system went into production the number of sensors was reduced to one.⁽⁵⁾

The issue of visibility discrepancies is well documented in the User Guide. The guide discusses the process of deriving an equivalent value from automated sensors. Transmissometers were found to be the best devices for this task, having proven themselves in Runway Visibility Range (RVR) systems. "Studies have shown that human visibility is closely correlated with transmittance."⁽⁶⁾ However, "--scatter meters were less costly to build and easier to maintain than transmissometers,"⁽⁷⁾ and cost was an overriding factor in the program. "Therefore, qualification testing focused on scatter meters with the goal that they could be used as an alternative to transmissometers."⁽⁸⁾ To work around the accuracy problems with scatter meters different visibility algorithms were developed.

The next step was to develop algorithms to process the sensor data into a representative visibility. This step required identifying those key elements the human eye responds to in determining visibility. During the day, the human eye relies on variations in contrast between the visibility target and its background when viewing through fog, mist, haze, rain, or snow. At night, the human eye uses a distant, unfocused light to determine visibility.

The original specification had this to say:

"A photocell on the visibility sensor turns on at dawn or off at dusk at a light level between 0.5 and 3 foot candles (deep twilight). This function determines whether the sensor uses the day or night equation to calculate visibility. For a given extinction coefficient, the day calculation will provide a visibility from 1/2 to 1/3 of that derived by the night equation. Therefore, an abrupt change in visibility may be reported after sunrise or sunset if there is a significant obstruction."⁽⁹⁾

As I have shown, the problems with the ASOS visibility sensors have been recognized since early in the development stages. The problem is that the proposed solution, that of having a different algorithm for day and night visibility determinations and using a photocell to switch between them, was deleted from the final ASOS specification and current ASOS installations do not use these two different algorithms -- they use the same one for both day and night. This has already been acknowledged; in fact, ATA-10 thought it important enough to publish in ATB 98-1 so that controllers and pilot briefers would be familiar with the problem. However, I know of only a handful of pilot briefers and no controllers or pilots who are aware of it. As a result, pilot briefers have come to recognize patterns in ASOS reports without understanding why the patterns exist.

For example, the ASOS Users Guide states: "an abrupt change in visibility may be reported after sunrise or sunset if there is a significant obstruction" because of the change between the day and night algorithms.⁽¹⁰⁾ However, since there is now only one algorithm, ASOS observations do not change in this manner but human observations do. One particular day last November there was a haze layer covering most of eastern North Carolina. ASOS observations at New Bern (EWN) and Morehead City (MRH) reported visibilities between six and eight miles all day, while the human observer at Cherry Point Naval Air Station (NKT) reported three to four miles in haze all day. These locations are all within a 15-mile radius. As soon as the sun went down the reported visibility at NKT jumped to eight miles, as would be expected when the human eye transfers from backscattered to forward scattered light. The ASOS observations did not change. An experienced pilot briefer might recognize the pattern and realize that the prevailing visibility at all three stations was marginal, but most would not.

That was the purpose of the original UCR -- to force either the correction of the problem or widespread dissemination of the information so that both pilots and air traffic personnel understand the limitations of the system in order to keep the flow of air traffic safe, orderly, and expeditious. The FAA is not interested.

¹ ASOS Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, Section 4.2 p27.

² Comparison of ASOS and Observer Ceiling-Height and Visibility Values, Allan C. Ramsay, Hughes STX Corporation, p. 2, Table 1.

³ Air Traffic Bulletin, ATA-10, Number 98-1, p3.

⁴ ASOS Quick Start Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, p6.

⁵ ASOS Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, Section 4.2.1 p29.

⁶ ASOS Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, Section 4.2.1 p28.

⁷ ASOS Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, Section 4.2.1 p28.

⁸ ASOS Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, Section 4.2.1 p28.

⁹ ASOS Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, Section 4.2.1 p28.

¹⁰ ASOS Guide For Pilots, US Department of Commerce, NOAA, NWS, Section 4.2.1 p28. 

   FAA FLIGHT SERVICE OUTSOURCING STUDY:

An Update by Andrea Chay, Seattle AFSS

To be published in the July 9 edition of General Aviation News

The study to outsource, or contract out Flight Service continues. It is called an A76 study. There are now 5 vendors and the in house organization (called the MEO, most efficient organization), left competing for the Flight Service contract. All vendors must have their technical proposals in by Aug. 3rd, 2004, and their cost proposals in by Sept. 3rd, 2004. The technical proposals are the who, how, where and what, and the cost proposal is how much. After the proposals are in, the FAA outsourcing official will decide who wins the competition. The decision will be made somewhere between Dec. 2004, and March 17th, 2005. It must be made by March 17th. After the decision, there will be a 6 month "phase in" period, and the "transition" period can last 2 to 3 years. So what does this mean to you, the pilot?

If the MEO wins, the employees will stay as government employees, but consolidation of facilities will begin. We who are working in the field have no idea how many facilities will remain, and the locations of said facilities. There is no guarantee that any facility now open will remain so. When Canada consolidated their Flight Service stations into FICs, flight information centers, they lost approximately 1/3 of their work force. While some of the smaller stations are still open, they only provide radio service, and will eventually be closed once the radio relays can be set up.

If a contractor wins, the same sort of consolidation will occur. The employees will either become contractor employees, or be out of work, or working in other parts of the government, or private industry. Either way, it means less people, less service for you the pilot. You will experience longer hold times, and probably not as many services as we now provide. FAA is not providing any new staffing pending the outcome of this "study," so nationwide, we are losing staff at an alarming rate, with no replacements.

Here in Seattle, when I came 3 years ago, we had 50 controllers working the floor to provide you preflight and inflight briefing services. Now we have 35. We still have to cover the facility 24/7, so you can see how much less staffing we have on each shift.

The only way to stop this A76 study is to get Congress to stop it, or to vote out the current administration. Candidate Kerry has promised our union officials that he would stop the outsourcing of our jobs, which he along with us believes should remain inherently governmental. We know how the current administration feels about outsourcing government jobs! We ask you pilots to contact your representatives, (again), and let them know this vital service we provide needs to stay governmental.

   LETTER TO ROBERT STURGELL

National Association of Air Traffic Specialists
Western Pacific Region
28515 Watson Rd.
Romoland, CA 92585

June 5, 2004

Mr. Robert A. Sturgell
FAA Deputy Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20591

Dear Mr. Sturgell

Thank you for visiting RAL AFSS. I am sorry I could not be there today, but I was notified yesterday that you would be in town, and I had prior commitments. It has been awhile since anyone outside of the Air Traffic Organization has visited the Flight Service Option. Currently there is an A-76 competition on the services we provide.

The A-76 should be stopped. As flight service controllers, we perform many functions that are vital to the role of National Security, and should be classified as "inherently governmental." Some of those functions include issuing Notice to Airman (NOTAMS) for Presidential travel.

If the FAA cannot stop the A-76, by designating us inherently governmental, I would recommend to Ms. Marion Blakey, that the FAA stop the competition until the ATO transition is complete. Last week, Mr. Russ Chew stated he could not make any financial decisions until a cost analysis had been performed. This is holding up Reduction in Force (RIF) negotiations.

Furthermore, with budget money tight, the FAA turned down a proposal from NAATS that would have saved 650 million dollars over seven years. Had they accepted this proposal the FAA would have had over 20 million dollars to use on other budgetary needs, like OASIS.

I am asking you to take up the cause for flight service. Flight service is wounded, and morale is down, but we can recover with the support of the FAA. I urge you to meet with NAATS president Wally Pike, to discuss cost saving measures, and stopping the A-76.

If we cannot stop the A-76, then one thing has to happen: the FAA must ensure the employees will be given a soft-landing. The FAA must come out in either RIF negotiations or some other avenue, and promise the employees they will have a soft landing. The FAA could address the staffing issues in other Air Traffic options by waiving the age 31 rule, and allowing flight service controllers to continue serving the pilots.

In closing, I thank you for spending the time to not only visit flight service, but to listen to the issues facing our option. I look forward to working with you to resolve the issues outlined in this letter. Thank you for reading this letter. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer anything I can.

Sincerely,
Michael Puffer
NAATS AWP
Regional Director

   HELP US KEEP THE SKIES SAFE

By: Patty Kast, SAN AFSS, Published in the North County Times

What do you get when you take an air traffic controller, a 911 dispatcher, a flight instructor and a meteorologist? A flight service specialist.

Flight Service Stations are a critical element of our air traffic system. About 2,500 of us work in 75 stations throughout the United States. We provide noncommercial aviators with search-and-rescue services, weather briefings and flight planning. We were the central disseminators of information for the flying public in the days after the 9-11 attacks. Our funding comes from the aviation trust fund.

Unfortunately, our jobs may be contracted to the lowest bidder. The Bush administration has decided our services are not "inherently governmental," unlike the rest of the air traffic system. A request for service providers was issued and final bids are due in August.

Acquisition of FSS services by a for-profit company will harm critical air traffic services and compromise safety in a quest for profits. Air traffic control should remain a government monopoly. Any difference in standards or procedures could bring disaster.

Most troubling to me, as an FSS specialist, will be the loss or consolidation of local facilities. San Diego FSS airspace includes San Diego and Imperial counties. Flight planning to Mexico is our specialty. Pilots throughout the West know this. No one is more familiar with our weather patterns, that can cause dangerous, unexpected flying conditions over our mountainous terrain.

Pilots flying through the complex airspace of Southern California do not want service from a hired-on-the-cheap vendor 1,000 miles away. We are the only local representatives of the FAA who field questions and concerns to the general public 24 hours a day. Be assured this service will not survive the ax of a for-profit company.

We recognize the need to cut costs and streamline operations. Flight service specialists have been doing more with less for years, within our budget. Our jobs are on the line, but this is not our main concern, as we would likely be reassigned within the agency.

We believe no one can do our job more safely and efficiently than we can. Profit should never come before safety.

It is not too late to support our efforts to become classified "inherently governmental," with the rest of the air traffic control system. A hearing will be conducted July 15 before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and the Subcommittee on Aviation. Please contact your congressman, Rep. Darrell Issa at (760) 599-5000, or Rep. Duke Cunningham at (760) 737-8438. Let them know you support the air traffic system as it stands.

Safety is more important than profit.

Patty Kast of Escondido is an air traffic control specialist.

   THE MONTHLY RANT

Greg McGann, RDU AFSS

GENOT RWA 4/999 ALATFO
AS THE SUMMER TRAVEL SEASON CONTINUES TO SWELL THE NUMBER OF AIR TRAVELERS, WE MUST SEEK TO PROVIDE THE BEST CUSTOMER SERVICE POSSIBLE. OUR CURRENT DELAY RATE IS UNACCEPTABLE; THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY;

THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER MILES-IN-TRAIL RESTRICTIONS. THIS UNNECESSARILY DELAYS FLIGHTS. THE STANDARD SEPARATION OF 5 MILES WILL BE USED AT ALL TIMES.

THERE WILL BE NO MORE GROUND STOPS OR GROUND DELAYS. THESE SEVERELY IMPACT OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE.

ALL ESTMP PROGRAMS ARE CANCELLED. CUSTOMERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT TO GET TO THEIR DESTINATIONS. FURTHERMORE, THE LIMITING OF AVAILABLE SLOTS CONTRIBUTES TO AN UNACCEPTABLE LOST-FLIGHT RATE.

SWAP WILL NO LONGER BE USED EXCEPT IN EXTREME EMERGENCIES AS IT CONTRIBUTES TO FLIGHT DELAYS.

TO HELP MANAGE THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ALL ATC PERSONNEL WILL BE EXPECTED TO DO THEIR SHARE. BREAKS WILL BE LIMITED OR ELIMINATED. MEALS WILL BE EATEN ON POSITION. DURING BUSY PERIODS GROUND AND LOCAL MAY BE COMBINED, ALLOWING THE EXTRA CONTROLLER TO HELP WITH CLEARANCE DELIVERY. IN ALL ARTCCS, R AND D SIDES MAY BE COMBINED TO FREE UP ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL. ATA�S MAY ALSO BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT STAFFING. ALL RESOURCES WILL BE USED, INCLUDING BOTH CENRAP IF APPROACH NEEDS HELP, AND HAVING APPROACH OCCASIONALLY WORK THE CENTER LOW SECTORS.

ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT CUSTOMER SERVICE IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY. HOWEVER, OE/OD RATES MUST CONTINUE TO DECLINE. EACH CONTROLLER WILL BE HELD STRICTLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL ERRORS. THESE CHANGES WILL ENSURE A REDUCED NUMBER OF DELAYS THIS SEASON. WE WISH TO THANK OUR MANAGEMENT BROTHERS IN THE AFSS OPTION FOR ASSISTING US WITH THIS PERFORMANCE PLAN. END.

The mission of the FAA has always been the expeditious, orderly and safe flow of air traffic. No, wait, it�s the expeditious, safe... no, that�s still not right. It�s funny how the same words mean different things in different contexts. "Customer Service" means "safety" to the FAA when dealing with the Center and Tower options, but in Flight Service, for some reason, it means "no delays." How did we let this situation come about?

The FAA has recognized that there comes a point at which a given workload becomes too great for an individual controller and performance suffers. The FAA has several approaches to alleviate this problem and keep the system safe, both long term and short term. In the long term, they invest in new technologies and new equipment to automate certain functions and increase the capacity of the system. They hire and train new personnel to keep the facilities adequately staffed. They work with the airline and general aviation interests to coordinate their efforts into a comprehensive plan. For the most part, they have succeeded. The United States Air Traffic System is the best in the world. We move more traffic, with a higher level of safety, and a lower cost, with fewer delays, than any other country. Yet when it comes to the Flight Service option, this strategy disappears.

In the early 1980�s they replaced the 1930�s era teletypes with early �70�s technology of LABS. In the early 1990�s they replaced LABS with the late �70�s technology of Model One. They finally started to give us a modern system with OASIS, but decided it cost too much and stopped.

After the PATCO strike of 1981 Flight Service was almost crippled by all the transfers of personnel to the other two options. If not for the FAA�s policy of placing training failures into Flight Service our option may well have died 20 years ago for lack of staffing. Now, however, the huge influx of people from the early �80�s are all reaching retirement at the same time, our own version of the Baby Boom, and the FAA has done nothing to correct or compensate for it.

The Flight Service option has historically had the best relationship with the general aviation community since we are their primary point of contact with the ATC system. Unlike the FAA�s efforts to coordinate new IFR procedures and equipment with general aviation, the FAA�s plans for Flight Service have never been honestly coordinated or even communicated with groups such as AOPA and others. In fact, these groups have been deliberately kept out of the loop, misled and lied to about the FAA�s plans. This has resulted in people like Phil Boyer going along with the FAA and cheerfully orchestrating their own demise.

It is clear that the FAA has no long-term plans for Flight Service other than a midnight burial behind the hangar. So what are they doing in the short term? For Centers and Towers the FAA has several options to manage workload, and they all involve reducing demand and traffic levels. When a sector becomes saturated they stop allowing traffic to enter. Aircraft are either routed around or held on the ground. When certain destinations become overloaded the FAA again reduces workload by increasing the spacing of aircraft with 10,20 and even 30 MIT restrictions. If that isn�t sufficient they reduce the number of aircraft in the system by utilizing ground stops and ground delays. If they know a special event would increase workload beyond capacity they institute advance programs such as slot times and EDCTs. Their solutions all have a common theme -- the capacity of the system is set by it�s effect on safety, and workload is managed by limiting access to the system.

In Flight Service, however, demand and workload can never be reduced. Why, that would be poor customer service! If they applied the same philosophy to Flight Service as they do to the other options, hold times would be just another traffic management strategy. What�s the difference between a 45-minute gate hold and a 45-minute Muzak hold waiting for a briefer? Pilots would be issued EBTs (Expect Briefing Times) and for special events such as NASCAR races and business conventions pilots would need to go to www.fly.faa.gov/ebt and obtain a briefing slot time. ATSCC would meet each morning and issue briefing delay times for facilities with IFR or hazardous weather.

Luckily, such measures have never been needed in Flight Service, and the current national average of 20-second hold times and 2 calls lost per hour in no way require such measures. However, they may very well be required with the downsized, streamlined MEO or contractor-provided Flight Service of the future.

I remember it now -- the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic. What was I thinking?

   FLYERS FACE AIR TRAFFIC FEES HIKE

By Steve Creedy, Globe & Mail, May 13, 2004

AVIATION operators and airlines face increases in air-traffic control and regulatory fees for the first time in up to nine years under the budget.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority will raise fees and charges for the first time since 1995 as it moves towards greater cost recovery. Further, Airservices Australia will boost tower fees for the first time since they were capped in 1998.

The Government argues that CASA has not increased charges since it was founded and has fallen behind in real terms. The authority has also been ordered to review full cost-recovery. From July 1, charges for services such as operating certificate reviews will be increased to recover an additional $1.9 million.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the increases would apply to all fees, but no additional regulatory services would attract charges. He said some fees could double. "Whatever the increases are on July 1, they will still be a long way below full cost recovery."

CASA will meet next week with industry to discuss the changes. The Government is providing CASA with an extra $29.2 million over four years, including $9.7 million in 2004-05, to make sure it had the funding "to protect the lives of millions of Australians who travel each year," said Transport Minister John Anderson.

However, CASA sources said the extra funding included $26 million designed to offset the loss in revenue from fuel duties, because of a drop in consumption in Australia. The Government has provided $7 million in the current budget to subsidize towers at 14 regional and general aviation airports where tower charges have been capped.

They are Albury, Coffs Harbour, Launceston, Mackay, Maroochydore, Rockhampton, Tamworth, Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Jandakot, Moorabin, Parafield and Essendon.

But Mr. Anderson said tower charges at these airports had also fallen behind in real terms.
"Accordingly, the Government has decided to allow Airservices Australia to increase its charges at these airports in line with inflation over the past six years to a maximum of $8.67 per tonne, GST inclusive," he said. "Airservices will also apply this price cap to tower services at Hobart, Cairns, Coolangatta and Canberra airports."

Mr. Anderson said any price increases would be subject to industry consultation and scrutiny by the competition watchdog.

In other developments, the Government announced it would spend an additional $7.7 million on the Remote Air Services Subsidy Scheme over four years and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau would get an additional $14.4 million over a similar period. 

   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.

One Controller�s Thoughts on His Search for a Candidate to Vote For

By Larry DuPre, GNV AFSS

We are at a critical point not only in the life of our union, but also in the life of our profession. As a union, we must decide who we are and what we are to become. For too long we have been the neglected class of air traffic controllers. Historically, the public has only known of controllers who work in Air Route Traffic Control Centers or in Towers. All too few know of those who perform the vital air traffic work in Flight Service.

This, however, is absolutely clear: we cannot depend on our employer to treat us fairly, nor can we depend on NATCA to be the tide that lifts all boats. Some have suggested we have had a paternalistic view of employer and thought if we "behaved" they would treat us well. Well, I for one am sick to death of being treated as if we are the "redheaded stepchildren." Given the reality of our present circumstances, those who cling to the belief that the FAA views Flight Service as an equal part of the air traffic family are delusional.

And while I am on a rant, our own NAATS leadership must recognize these facts:

A: NATCA owes us nothing; NATCA looks out for the dues-paying members of NATCA.

B: We cannot depend on NATCA for anything, nor should we; We have no right to expect anything from NATCA; and

C: What we CAN do is take a page from the NATCA book and do what all effective Unions do: LOOK OUT FOR AND TAKE CARE OF THE INTERESTS OF OUR MEMBERS.

If we in NAATS are to be relevant, we must be active. We have to go get what we want, what we need. Our jobs are as safety critical as any job anywhere in aviation, but the FAA is not listening, and it is too late for the same old tired talk. We need to insist that this fact be recognized.

There is no basis for comparison between NAATS and NATCA. They are not like us. We are not terminal or enroute controllers, we are something entirely different but of equal value. We are Flight Service Controllers!

We provide unique services which require years of training, both classroom and on-the-job. Were an air traffic controller (and I can speak from personal experience) to choose to change to the Flight Service Option, it would be back to the drawing board for him or her. New training, new facility, new job and perhaps most importantly a whole new multitude of ways of putting your ticket on the line even more often than the other two options. When it comes to day-to-day responsibility, we have no equal.

General Aviation represents a far higher percentage of total aviation than all of commercial airline traffic and military traffic combined. We speak with politically powerful people on a daily basis, and we do everything from keeping them away from hazardous weather to searching for them when they are overdue. The people involved in general Aviation are the most affluent and politically powerful segment of American society. These are the people we guide when there are thunderstorms, around TFRs and safely to their destinations every day, and whose lives are dependent upon us on a daily basis. We do that, Flight Service Controllers!

Folks, it is imperative that we put into action a new way of doing business. We do not need a minor adjustment; we need a 180 degree turn in direction. Business as usual is the last thing we need, and if we make the choice for more of the same, it will indeed be the last thing we do as FAA Flight Service Controllers.

What has brought me to this conclusion? Take a look at what business-as-usual has accomplished: the recent so-called pay raise in which some members actually take home less money than before the "raise"; and (let us never forget) the newly signed bargaining agreement, replete with the term "operations permitting." Make no mistake, the term "operational requirements permitting" means "at the whim of the FAA."

Why is Flight Service the first option to confront the A76 privatization process? Because we have been conducting business as usual. No matter who you vote for, decide if more of the same is what you want.

As for me, I want change. I want a Union in which the vote of the individual member matters most. I want a Union leadership that believes the members can be trusted, and that those who pay the dues decide the course of the Union. I want a real annual convention where delegates attend with the power and authority to conduct the business of the Union.

I never again want to hear a national officer say that this so-called pay raise and bargaining agreement we have are what the rank and file wanted. That is a lie, and if you are a national officer and believe it is true, you are totally out of touch with every rank and file member I know, or have ever spoken to. Quit talking and listen! We are not happy, and we want a change, and we want it now -- starting with this election!

Wally Pike has been an effective president and has performed remarkably well under unbelievably adverse circumstances. I do not think anyone could have performed better or have been more effective. However, Wally has chosen to step down and we must decide where we go from here. Every election is an opportunity to evaluate candidates and their ideas.

We have that opportunity. This is not an attempt to find fault or place blame, but to make meaningful changes, and we must look objectively at how we got where we are. Ask yourself, "What is the voting record of my representative and even more important, what is the voting record of each present or past board member who wishes to be President?"

Board members must know elemental factors necessary for the survival of a union. Like it or not, we are where we are partially because the decisions made by present and past Union leadership. The bottom line is really quite simple: "This is our union. The responsibility of managing this Union rests on you and me, the rank and file. We have to elect officers, particularly a president, who can hit the ground running.

I pledge to you that I am going to talk to each candidate for president, and I am going to ask all of them some hard questions. At the last convention, I asked each Executive Board member to sign this pledge: "If A76 becomes a reality and we are privatized, I will not seek nor accept a management job with either a vendor or the FAA." I want to see that pledge, particularly from anyone who would be a candidate for our highest office. I do not care how many individuals among the FAA management team they count as close personal friends. I care about NAATS! What good have their "so-called" friends ever done for NAATS?

We as members must recognize that management personnel are often our adversaries. That is the reality of any labor management relationship. Did I hear someone say "If they were adversaries, they might not treat us as well?" If axing our raise and outsourcing our profession are examples of "treating us well," would someone please define "treating us badly?"

During the recently concluded AFSS leadership conference, in which all Flight Service Air Traffic Managers and FacReps came to Washington, I had an opportunity to informally meet with one of the Board Members who stated they intended to seek the presidency of our Union. This conversation took place in the lobby of the hotel, with most of the Southern Region FACREPS present.

"If you are not elected president," I asked, "what will you do?"

"If I am not elected president," the candidate stated, "I may seek a position either with the FAA or the successful vendor." While I appreciate candor and honesty, the answer reveals the slippery slope upon which this person has chosen to navigate. By having one foot in each camp, one can be loyal to neither. And if you cannot be the leader, you will drop out? Not only drop out, but change sides, go over to the opposition?

Folks, we are in a fight. Figuratively speaking it is a fight to the death, because the demise of our profession and therefore our livelihood are both at stake. In a fight you choose sides. I chose my side years ago. Any candidate for president who wants my support must be unequivocally on my side of the fence, the side of Flight Service.

If you would lead me, stand on my side of the line and be prepared to stay there, and stay there come what may.

I ask every member to do these three things:

Look hard at where we are;

Decide if this is where you want to be; and

Vote as if your job depends on it.

My name is Larry DuPre. I am the FacRep in Gainesville, Florida. I see a line in the sand. If you know me, you know where I stand. 

 PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE:

The Villainous WEP and GPO

By Reg Jones, FedWeek.com

CSRS employees approaching retirement are almost always in a good mood until they learn about two provisions of law that can reduce their expected retirement benefits. While these provisions won�t reduce their CSRS annuity, they always reduce -- and sometimes eliminate -- any Social Security benefit to which they may otherwise be entitled. The villains are the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. Just call them the WEP and the GPO.

The WEP

The WEP reduces the Social Security benefit payable to nearly all CSRS employees who will be receiving an annuity from a retirement system where they didn�t pay Social Security taxes. As a result, they�ll have a modified formula used to compute their Social Security benefit. Only those with 30 or more years of "substantial" earnings under Social Security will receive a full benefit. The rest will receive a smaller amount, usually much smaller.

To see how you might be affected, let�s look at the formula used to compute the benefits of employees who aren�t affected by the WEP. For example, if you are a CSRS Offset or FERS employee who turned 62 in 2004, the formula would look like this:

Your first $612 of average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) would be multiplied by 90 percent;

Everything from $612 to $3,689 of the AIME would be multiplied by 32 percent;

AIME above $3,689 would be multiplied by15 percent.

The total of these three multiplications when adjusted by your total years of Social Security coverage would be your monthly pension from Social Security.

However, if you are a CSRS employee, the WEP will reduce that 90 percent factor by 5 percentage points for each year of substantial earnings fewer than 30.

Fortunately, the reduction bottoms out at 40 percent for those who have 20 or fewer years of substantial earnings, otherwise CSRS employees with limited Social Security coverage would get nothing. As it is, the maximum reduction works out to be just above $300 a month.

To meet the substantial earnings criterion, you must have earned a lot more per year than the amount needed to earn Social Security credits. For example, in 2003 you�d only have to earn $3,600 to get a full year�s credit (four quarters) from Social Security. However, to receive credit for substantial earnings, you�d have to make $16,275.

The GPO

The GPO only hits those who will receive an annuity from CSRS and have a spouse who will receive one from Social Security. In most cases, the Social Security benefit to which they would be entitled will be reduced or eliminated. If you are a CSRS employee -- not CSRS Offset or FERS -- the GPO will reduce your Social Security spousal benefit by $2 for every $3 you receive in your CSRS annuity.

So, if you are eligible for a monthly CSRS annuity of $1,800, two-thirds of that -- $1,200 -- will be used to offset your monthly Social Security spousal benefit. If that benefit was $1,300, you would receive only $100 a month from Social Security. That�s because $1,000 subtracted from $1,100 leaves a positive balance of only $100.
The larger your CSRS annuity, the less you�ll receive from your spousal benefit. For example, if you had a monthly CSRS annuity of $2,400 and a monthly spousal benefit of $1,200, you wouldn't get anything from Social Security. Two-thirds of $2,400 is $1,600. Subtracting that from $1,100 leaves you with zip. Because CSRS annuities are usually much greater than Social Security spousal annuity benefits, the GPO usually wipes out the latter benefit.

The Future

While there have been moves in Congress to completely eliminate the WEP and the GPO, that�s highly unlikely. However, there is always a chance that they may be modified. Keep a good thought.

   FEDERAL EMPLOYEE NEWS

Brought to you by FedWeek.com

TSP Loan Policy Changes Ahead

Effective July 1, several previously approved changes in Thrift Savings Plan loan policies take effect. First, there will be a $50 processing fee assessed on each loan, with the amount deducted from the loan payout. Second, investors will no longer be able to have two general purpose loans at the same time; having one general purpose loan and one residential loan will still be permitted, however. Third, after paying off a loan, investors will have to wait at least 60 days before applying for another loan of the same type. The changes were enacted largely in reaction to data showing that a relatively small minority of investors make the greatest use of the loan program and that the administrative costs they incur were being shared by all investors. Also, TSP officials were concerned that by taking out numerous loans, some investors were undercutting the primary purpose of the TSP, which is for retirement savings.

Toll-Free Phone Service Also Coming

The TSP will begin offering toll-free service to its customer service center starting July 1, in response to long-standing request to provide such a service. The number, accessible from the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, will be (877) 968-3778, TDD (877) 847-4385. The current line, (504) 255-8777 will remain available and should be used for all other overseas calls.

FEGLI Open Season Coming Up

A rare open season for enrolling in or changing coverage levels in the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program will be held in September, marking the 50th anniversary of the program. FEGLI typically holds open seasons only when benefit levels or premium rates change. Neither will change in the upcoming opportunity, which will be open only to active employees and certain rehired annuitants -- and not to retirees otherwise. The elections and resulting premium changes won�t be effective until the first pay period of September 2005. FEGLI enrollees can cancel or reduce coverage at any time, but outside an open season they generally may only increase coverage by proving insurability or after experiencing certain life events such as marriage or the birth of a child. No proof of insurability will be required for elections made in the upcoming open season. Employees who do not wish to change their coverage will not have to do anything in the open season.

No Mistake on FEGLI Election Delay

In response to questions from federal personnel offices regarding a key provision of the upcoming open season in the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program, the Office of Personnel Management has sent out a memo saying that what they were questioning was no mistake: elections made during the open season, which will run September 1-30, will not take effect until a year later, with the first pay period of September 2005. [Emphasis added.] The memo noted that the prior FEGLI open season, in 1999, also had a delayed effective date. "The reason for the delay is to prevent adverse selection -- employees increasing coverage only when they know they need it, resulting in a high number of immediate claims. Such claims increase the program�s costs, and the delayed effective date lessens that effect," OPM told agencies. OPM added that the election form to be used in the open season, to be called the FE-2004, is not ready yet.

White House Repeats Raise Position

The Bush administration, in a report on managing federal spending, has reiterated its stance against across-the-board federal raises and in favor of raises more targeted to performance and labor markets. The workforce is diverse and "deserves a targeted approach to setting and adjusting pay rates; an across-the-board pay increase will not achieve the desired result because it may be too small an increase where we do have workforce needs and too large an increase where we do not." Agencies are "linking the performance expectations of their leaders and managers to the agency�s goals and are cascading those performance expectations throughout their organizations. The President and Congress are working to determine the pay policy that best allows agencies to target specific personnel needs and opportunities, and gives agencies better tools with which to address skill gaps and recruit, retain, and reward the quality people they need to accomplish their missions," the report said.

Work on Key Spending Measures Begins

With the House having passed a budget outline for the upcoming fiscal year (S.Con.Res 95) -- a Senate vote has been delayed over budget rules issues -- work has begun on the appropriations bills that will contain the actual funding and policy directions for fiscal 2005. The process could move more quickly than usual this year, since appropriators are off to a late start and working time is short in an election year. The Transportation-Treasury appropriations measure likely will be where the debate over the January 2005 federal raise plays out; in the past, employee-friendly legislators have added language to that bill setting the raise higher than the White House recommended. That could occur again this year, as backers of "pay parity" with military personnel seek to boost the recommended 1.5 percent federal raise to the 3.5 percent slated for the military.

House Likely to Move First on Raise

The next action on the 2005 federal raise likely will occur in the House, which in March passed a non-binding measure supporting "pay parity." The budget resolution from which appropriators are working does not include similar language, but during House voting on that resolution, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., head of the Government Reform Committee, engaged in a "colloquy" with the head of the Budget Committee, Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, noting that the pay parity measure had passed with 299 votes and asking if parity is the position of the House. Nussle replied in the affirmative. Such exchanges define the intent of the House and act as precedent -- and political cover -- for later action.

Senate Backs Contracting Restrictions

During voting on a Defense Department funding measure (S-2400) the Senate endorsed several restrictions previously backed by the House on contracting-out policy, several applying only to DoD but one of which would be government-wide. The latter provision would let federal employees of all agencies file challenges against contracting decisions with the General Accounting Office, just as disappointed private sector bidding companies may do. GAO ruled earlier this year that it doesn�t have authority to hear appeals from employees-typically filed through their union representatives-under the government�s contracting-out guidance, OMB Circular A-76. The House earlier backed the appeals rights, although only in non-binding "sense of Congress" language. 

Regional Supplements

ALASKA REGION

CENTRAL REGION

EASTERN REGION

GREAT LAKES REGION

NEW ENGLAND REGION

NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION

SOUTHERN REGION

Dave Hoover, Director and Tom Forte, Coordinator

First, I want to apologize to the membership for not having a contribution in the National Newsletter since December of 2003. Although I assigned the duties, the responsibility is mine. Secondly, for any member who wants to contribute to the newsletter, please email your contribution directly to Eli Morrissy at the NAATS News email address, [email protected]. You certainly do not need anyone�s permission to contribute. Additionally, the official Southern Region contribution should be a product highlighting what your elected officials have been working on or a rational perspective of union issues.

At the time of this writing, I have not yet made a decision to run for office, either regional or national. I have spent a tough year being away from my family, and I admit that our Union has had few successes. I know many of you are working just as hard and are equally as frustrated. It is important that we continue to support each other.

I would like to express a few random personal comments (as comments they are debatable, I concede):

• The MEO may be the best available resolution to the A76 process for our membership, nevertheless the A76 process is a bad proposition for our future. That is to say emphatically that an MEO victory will represent a dramatic impact on both our careers and our lives, as it must, in order to win. It will be characterized by significant change to Flight Service, as we know it today. It is better to stop the entire A76 process.

• The ATO may very well gut Flight Service before A76 reaches conclusion. Those in a position to help Flight Service keep talking, but we are not seeing any results.

• I�m sure everyone has heard that the AFSS manager who stood up before the entire Manager/FacRep Convention and said, "I don�t know how to measure success. I don�t know what it looks like," has been promoted to tower chief by the new ATO. He was in charge of RDU AFSS, a facility that had been Facility of the Year three times under the previous manager, and this guy never came close. Makes you wonder how we got this bad off.

• During the past three years, the Agency has metamorphosed from an organization embracing partnership to one which welcomes adversarial challenge. It is no longer sufficient to be right, or to have the apparent protections of a contract agreement. Several times during regional, I have heard conversations stating that the position of the Agency is "If the Union doesn�t like what management does, they have access to the grievance process." We are in dangerous times.

• It will be easy to find fault with those currently working for the Union. Please be mindful of their effort.

I am convinced that if we are to be successful in the future, we must strengthen our capacity to represent our issues. In the coming elections, some will no doubt be crying "change, we want change!" Without providing details as to how we can devise and implement effective changes, it will not produce different results. It is long past time for the Union to examine our goals, our values and our approach to doing business. We must stop trying to meet the agency on their terms, and instead find the answers within to gain leverage. I can give some examples.

When ANB AFSS had a �sick building� the members asked for help, and they kept asking. When help was not forthcoming from the agency, they took their story to another agency and then another. Finally, when they were successful in getting independent tests on their air quality which proved that they were correct, they demanded reasonable accommodations. When those proved to be unacceptable, they went to the media. This got them attention from other agencies and higher parts of the FAA, and they closed the facility. When they were forced to return before they were confident it was safe, again they went to the media and again, they got it closed down. To his credit, the manager provided support when he could, although one must question whether he really had any other choice. In this facility, they chose not to deal on the agency�s terms.
When a new pot of money became available under a program called WEII, the Division Manager promised to take action in finding and correcting the management problems in MIA AIFSS. With Miami membership�s concurrence, we supported the pilot program in the Southern Region. Independent consultants converged on MIA AIFSS for four weeks, interviewing almost everyone. Then the Agency went off to an island to censor the findings and fabricate a resolution without further Union contribution. I was permitted a review just a few days before they were to go back to the facility to brief it out. The conclusion was, in essence, that management was in need of some quality training and human relations development in order to deal with an unruly bargaining unit. I was furious and MIA AIFSS was outraged. We made the decision to pull out of the program, refused to attend any debriefing and in effect, MIA AIFSS staged an in-house STRIKE against the regional office. I think we even �asked� the Division Manager to leave the Union office. I was proud to be Union.

The point is that the membership ceased to deal with the agency on the agency�s terms. Instead, they exercised their strength in unity, identified their values and were willing to fight back.

The NAATS Union has value, in and of itself. I believe there is valuable information to be gained by looking at what makes other Unions strong, and there is worth in employing professionals who can assist us, much as we have done in the Congressional arena. We also need to take advantage of our own resources. The key to our success is not in the work of the FacRep, Regional Coordinator, Director, Administrator, Chief Negotiator, or even the President. The true key to our success is in the highest possible participation of the Membership.

Let�s help each other get through the storm, then, build a stronger boat.

A Tribute to Billy Howard
(1951-2004)
By David Hoover, ASO RegDir

It is with immense sadness in our hearts that we announce that our beloved friend and the NAATS Union member William L. "Billy" Howard, Sr. passed away on June 17, 2004.

THE OBITUARY

Some of the facts provided: Billy Howard was born in Macon, GA to the late Willis Grady Howard, Sr. and the late Flora Hancock Howard. He was predeceased by a brother, Willis Grady Howard, Jr.

Mr. Howard was a 1968 graduate of Mark Smith High School and he served in the U.S. Navy. He was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration as an Air Traffic Controller in the Flight Service Option and stationed at MCN AFSS.

Billy�s dedication and volunteer efforts extend well beyond the boundaries of his primary occupation. They included:

Former President, BIBB County Jaycees
Past Master of Rutland Masonic Lodge
Pledge Center Coordinator, Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon (16 yrs)
Stage manager, Little Mister and Miss Cherry Blossom Pageant
Served on Board of Director�s, Dream Big Foundation

A testimony to his love and ambitious enthusiasm to share his heart are represented by those that survive him:

Brother, Robert B. Howard
Sons, Joshua D. Howard and W. Lewis Howard, Jr. (his wife, Joy)
Stepdaughter, Tara L. Sanders
Adopted son, S. Lee Higgins
Adopted daughter, Nancy B. Higgins
Adopted granddaughter, Taylor Higgins
Godson, Dakota Bittick

The First Time

I first met Billy at the expected event, Union Meeting. I and other young FacReps were taking in all the heavy veteran�s wisdom and strategies used to crush management. When Scott Malon, MIA AIFSS FacRep at the time, asked Billy what all this meant, he said to us, "Don�t get too wrapped up in what others insist are the secrets to getting the job done. You�ll have to learn it for yourselves. Everyone has a different membership. Represent the members that elected you for their needs and recognize they will be constantly changing. Back off, take a breath or you�ll burn yourself out, kids"

Memories

We became very close friends, as was generally the case with Billy. I would often stay at his home and hang out with him and his boys. He�s picked me up when I was stranded on I75 and even lent me his vehicle.
Far as I know, Billy was a NAATS union member forever. He served as Facility Representative, as well as, Alternate FacRep on numerous occasions. To be honest, I don�t know that he ever campaigned for any of the positions. Someone would quit or nobody else wanted the job and Billy would step up and take on the responsibility.

He was always there to serve the Union at all levels, whenever and however they needed him.

Billy never used the Union to bail him out, particularly when it came to taking responsibility for his actions. Had occasion to call him just this past year, because he had gotten into trouble for calling someone a "bitch." Turns out, it was on a recording, but they were going after him, anyway. So, I asked him if it could have been an accident, if someone had misunderstood him and that we could possibly get it to go away, if he would be willing to apologize. He told me quite frankly that he said it, that he meant to say it, that it was true and he wasn�t apologizing to anybody. All he needed the Union to do was mitigate the punishment, but it didn�t matter, he could live with it, either way.

The Last Time

The last time that I was fortunate enough to be with Billy was, again a Union event. By April of this year, he had been on extensive treatment and was barely holding his own, yet, he decided to interrupt his exhausting chemo-therapy and come to the LAS Convention. He didn�t come to complain about the contract, no pay raise, A76 or anything else that was probably within his right. Billy wanted to spend time with the people and at the functions to which he so dearly loved; the NAATS Union and its membership.

Billy Howard�s Legacy

Most of us knew him as a mentor, union partner and friend. As was indicated in his obituary, he was a leader by participation in the community and highly respected by virtue of the positions he held in those prominent organizations.

His personal family personifies the very essence of his "no limits to love" philosophy on life.

In the End

God saw that he was getting tired and cure was not to be.
So he placed his arms around him and whispered, "Come with me."
With tearful eyes, we now give leave to grief.
Yet knowing, in our loss he has found relief.
A precious spirit makes way for heaven; hard working hands lay to rest.
William L. "Billy" Howard excelled in life�s quest
In the End, God�s proof, he only takes the "Best."

GAINESVILLE AFSS LOCAL NEWS

By Larry DuPre, GNV FacRep

AFSS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

Transparency: We can see right through it!

Russ Chew�s oft stated vision of the new Air Traffic Organization is an organization whose culture will be based upon transparency. Judging by what happened at the recently concluded AFSS Leadership conference, many of his subordinates have not gotten the word. The greatest challenge facing our new Chief Operating Officer, as we have known from day one, is the management team he inherited. For those who grew up in a management style characterized by deception and outright dishonesty (the old Trickery and Treachery management style), transparency is a horrifying prospect, the last thing they want.

Consider what happened at our meeting in Washington:

The declared objective of the meeting was to bring all Air Traffic Managers ("Managers") and Facility Representatives ("FacReps") to Washington to work together to develop ideas and strategies, which would maximize the use of our limited personnel and resources. One key segment, scheduled for an entire afternoon, was to have been a meeting of FacReps and Managers to jointly agree on methods, which would minimize the impact on the folks we serve, yet at the same time provide a better work environment for the controller. Eastern FacReps would meet with Western Managers and Eastern Managers with Western FacReps.

You know, a meeting that promotes "cross-pollenization" ...where fresh points of view are considered without the encumbrance of old animosities. Great idea, huh? Blank flip charts at the ready, magic markers distributed, and as we were in the process of breaking up into two groups when (gasp!) someone from NAATS asked to have a short meeting with all of the FacReps. We were given a ten-minute break for a Union caucus.

Guess what? One of our members had discovered that the Air Traffic Managers had come in a day early, had already held a meeting, and had already developed their list of new procedures. (Warning -- Paradigm shift!!) Far from soliciting and implementing our ideas, the purpose of the meeting was to bring us around to their way of thinking and get our buy-in to their pre-determined agenda. Saying one thing, doing another. Trickery and Treachery.

Many present were reluctant to believe that managers would stoop so low. For the others it was simply another indication that the FAA management team was still clinging to their tried and true strategy of duplicity: Say one thing, do another.

One of the Regional Directors had obtained a copy of their proposals. The most infuriating portion stated that managers should simply go through the motions of listening to the Union in order to propagate the fallacy that this was a collective effort. As an aside, the proposal said, "NAATS might even have one or two worthwhile ideas."

The management document stressed that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain "Union buy in." Buy in to what, you ask? What was the object, the bottom line of their proposals? It was to manipulate controllers into working harder while being more closely supervised. In other words, although they created this mess, they needed to us to work even harder in order to make their numbers look better. They had no intention of listening to us, no intention of determining how they could do their jobs better. Not for a moment did they entertain the idea of additional use of staff to perform operational duties. Nothing. Just flog them until the complaints stop. Trickery and treachery.

After having their list read to us, it sank in that we were being played for suckers; therefore we politely declined to participate in the charade. The meeting was held with everyone present in one room. More than ninety percent of the participation was from the Union; managers sat on their hands (as they did for the entire conference).

I believe Russ Chew when he says he has a vision for a different kind of Air Traffic Organization. I do not believe, however, that Mr. Chew can succeed because, he is surrounded by the same management team that brought us to our present sorry state. When he says we are an aging work force using outmoded technology and are woefully under-staffed, he is absolutely correct. So how did we get into this state of disrepair? Look no further than the FAA management staff,... they did it. The same people he is relying on to change the broken system, created the broken system. The one characterized by trickery and treachery. They cannot and will not change it. It is all they know.

A word of warning, Mr. Chew. When a manager gives the standard line "things are not so bad, planes aren�t falling out of the sky," ask why? The reason is the hard work and creativity of controllers who give remarkable performances on a daily basis with little, if any, effective support from senior management.

The management culture of the FAA has been and continues to be a program that rewards managers who can best emulate Chameleons, those who can quickly change directions and adopt a new direction that is often 180 degrees from the old direction. The draconian management edicts going out to both NAATS and NATCA are from the same group of managers that three years ago were preaching partnership and joint ownership. If the Democrats win the upcoming election, the very same group will take off the brown shirts, put back on pastels and return to advocating campfire meetings to learn new ways to work together. They will also tell us they never really agreed with the whole Air Traffic Organization idea. If we are skeptical about the transformation, they will be hurt and will profess not to understand how we doubt their sincerity.

Transparency, Mr. Chew? You bet, it is so transparent, we can see right through it.

RALIEGH-DURHAM AFSS NEWS

Greg McGann, RDU FacRep

The News from Raleigh

The big news here at Raleigh this month is that our ATM was selected for a manager�s job at a tower. The FAA won�t let the employees transfer out, but they are taking care of their own. Of course, they have no intention of replacing our manager, so we have no idea what things will look like on the other side of the hall. There have been several possibilities suggested, few of which are desirable. We�ll just wait and see.

SUA/ISE training is supposed to start anytime now, just as prime time vacation leave is beginning. The timing certainly leaves something to be desired, and it will take a lot of oversight to make sure we don�t get screwed too much in scheduling this training. One suggestion has been that we delay the training until they actually get it working - after all, we�ve had TODS for a year and it has never worked.

Not surprisingly, morale took a nose-dive after the so-called FAA FSS Leadership Conference and we found out we were about to get "front-end loaded." We�ll be keeping a close eye on things in case management takes any of the FAA�s "best practices" to heart and starts trying to enforce them.
 

SOUTHWEST REGION

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION

 Mike Puffer, Director and Tom Avalos, Coordinator

Wally�s Visit

Wally visited the region in the middle of May, we had a joint meeting with Jim Washington in OAK, followed by a union only meeting that night. I am always amazed at how much shining a light on a facility will change things. One member who had a transfer delayed until October 2005 suddenly was released the next pay period.

Wally stopped briefly at HHR, where we had a meeting with Dr. Cleeves, a pilot and former ambassador. He supports our position and can get a letter directly into the hands of President Bush. Thank you to Mike Hiett for all his work on cultivating this relationship. Wally concluded the visit with a cookout at my house, and members from HHR, SAN and RAL attended. The Monday meeting at SAN, with Jim Washington was cancelled due to a last minute scheduling conflict.

RAL All Hands Meeting
Last week, I attended an all hands meeting at RAL. Loren Grace, from the MEO briefed RAL controllers on the A-76 process. She stated that it was her belief that any protests would slow down the process. I reminded her that JoAnn Kansier had stated that the process would continue on through out the protest process. Monique France from the region also gave a general briefing on HR issues.

Sturgell Visit
FAA Deputy Administrator Bobby Sturgell visited RAL AFSS at the beginning of the month. Thanks to Mike Millen RAL manager for getting a change of itinerary (he was speaking in Riverside). Originally he was scheduled to visit SCT and ZLA. Tom Avalos, Jennifer Zamora, and Chuck Andres represented the Union members and brought our issues to the Deputy Administrator. He actually sat down at a position and got a demonstration of OASIS. RAL proved that all flight service stations are not old buildings with the equipment falling apart, and disgruntled people, as alleged by JoAnn Kansier in a recent GOVEXEC article.

D.C. Conference Issues
We were assured by JoAnn Kansier that the decision would not be made on October 1, at last month�s joint manager/FacRep leadership conference. Marion Blakey was not invited, but Russ Chew was. According to Mr. Chew, we are just the beginning; they are looking at the other options. This is the one time I wish AFSS wasn�t leading the way.

I was embarrassed as an employee of the FAA. We had folks from different forums that couldn�t agree on interpretations of their regulations. Furthermore, given a chance to participate in dialog, and ask questions, very few managers participated. I was proud of the Union members who made sure the tough questions were asked.

Having visited seven of the facilities in the Western Pacific Region, and attended the convention, and Leadership conference, I have heard a lot of "why is the FAA doing this to us, or me?" I believe it is not a personal vendetta against flight service per se. I think more that it was a business decision, made by someone, who did not realize or know just how complex our job is. We must face the fact that this is not going away anytime soon, and so we must deal with it.

We Can�t Afford to Rest
We as a Union have had some great successes over the last 2 years, we held up a billion dollar spending bill, until Blakey promised not to contract out any portion of the Air traffic system in fiscal year 04. We have a congressional hearing scheduled. And recently Blakey received more letters from congress. We cannot afford to rest, with each success, we must continue to push. Continue calling/writing/emailing your representative. If your representative is up for reelection, let them know you are a registered voter. Remember, politics is local.

Keep up the good fight! I am proud to work with a dedicated workforce.


HAWTHORNE AFSS NEWS

Eli Morrissy, HHR AFSS

Re-cert Congratulations

Congratulations to Marc Smith (MC) on his recent re-certification on the Coordinator position.

Congratulations also go to Mr. and Mrs. Smith on their recent marriage. Marc�s bride, Jourdis, is also a U.S. Marine who is currently serving on assignment in Japan. It�s a difficult way to start out, but everyone wishes the happy couple all the best.

Condolences
Heartfelt condolences to Tim Harvey (TM) and his family on the sudden loss of his mother-in-law. Everyone�s thoughts and prayers are with you all.

On Active Duty
Mike Dassaro (NY) is currently on active duty with the U.S. Army Reserve attending training at Fort Huachuca, AZ followed by 2 weeks annual training up in Washington state. Hope he�s enjoying his "vacation."

Postcard Campaign
Our FacRep Scott Morrissy has taken a page from AGL RegDir Jack O�Connell�s playbook and is putting together packages for local FBOs containing a letter informing them of the outsourcing of Flight Service and a set of 4 preprinted and stamped postcards -- one each for President Bush, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein and local Representatives. He�s also providing a list pilots can use to look up the address of their congressional representative to hand write on the fourth card.

Thanks to AWP RegDir Mike Puffer for his offer of help on the postage this project. Talk to Scott or me if you want to help distribute informative packages at your local airports.

Good Luck Frank!
Frank Cortez (FC) has joined the team at Riverside AFSS. He made the change to accommodate his family�s needs and we wish him all the best with his new coworkers. Frank is a very competent controller with expert knowledge of weather gained from his years as a military forecaster. Riverside will be enriched by his presence. Best of luck, Frank!

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.