National Association of Air Traffic Specialists

Aviation Safety is Our Business

NAATS NEWS, December 1999

Table of Contents

From The President

DC DATA Dump

NAATS Y2K News

Flight Service to Support Centers/TRACONs/Towers

Flights Scarce New Years Eve

Compensation Bulletin 2

OASIS Program Report

ACD Workgroup Report

NOTAM Handbook Rewrite Workgroup

Health and Safety Tidbits

Laser Vision Correction

Briefly

NEWSLETTER E-MAIL ADDRESS:

[email protected]

From The President by Wally Pike NAATS President

Portions of this article have been distributed to the facilities via the email update. If you, re not receiving the email update please contact your regional representatives.

During the week of November 15 ATP sponsored the "General Aviation Summit" in Washington, D.C. The meeting began on Monday and ended Friday. The theme for the meeting was the renaissance of Flight Service. Participants were the user groups; AOPA, NBAA, GAMA, SAMA, EAA, the 99’s, our Board of Directors and various levels of FAA management.

The results of this meeting were revolutionary for our option. Among the unanimous recommendations:

• Overhaul the entire NOTAM system,
• Replace DF with Aircraft Situational Displays at all FSSs,
• Allow FSS to provide real time SUA information,
• Spend the briefing time on the most important items, de-emphasize legal requirements that hamper communications,
• Do not permit off-loading to another facility when a pilot calls a specific facility location on the ground or inflight,
• Provide FSS controllers with aircraft "tags" (data blocks), including briefing history,
• Revise present policies to provide FSS controllers with training and certification for forecasts and nowcasts,
• Provide a shared database between all FAA facilities,
• Replace WMSCR lines to improve data communication rates,
• Provide operational weather graphics that show current and forecast weather hazard areas for instrument conditions, thunderstorms, icing and turbulence. Ensure these are highly accurate, precise and timely,
• Fully fund the FAA aviation weather research program,
• Improve number and quality of PIREPs by educating pilots on the need and best practice methods of reporting.

The combined summit participants briefed these recommendations, as well as several others, to AT-1. It was stressed that these are unanimous recommendations and implementation is expected and will be closely monitored. An Interim Review Group (IRG) will be formed with representatives of management, user groups and NAATS to ensure implementation. In May of 2000 another meeting will be held by the participants to review progress.

Obviously, there’s a lot of work ahead of us to accomplish these goals but this is the first time in my experience that we’ve had industry supporting our efforts. Just as obviously, the FAA will have to change the way they look at our option and the services we can and should provide. So be it. We (NAATS, user groups, FAA management) are very encouraged by what we accomplished and we’re determined to maintain the momentum.

PRT Chairman Larry Burdick is preparing a press release. I will stay in close touch with both industry leaders and FAA management as we proceed and I’ll keep you advised.

MEETINGS

The Board of Directors met the week of November 29 in Washington, D.C. It was decided that we would continue to make the OASIS and staffing issues our highest priority along with compensation negotiations. We also allocated additional funds for arbitration and there will be an increased emphasis on training.

Please note that the date for the national membership meeting in CY2000 was set. It will be on November 15-16 with an additional Facrep training class on November 14. The location is Orlando, Florida.

I have a meeting on December 14 with Steve Brown, acting ATS-1, to discuss how the FAA will fund the additional 90 FSS controllers incorporated into the congressional language. One concern is the training ability at the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City. It appears that the FAA has allowed the instructor staff to attrite to the point where they can't train all the students without conducting night classes. There's an additional $600,000 cost that must be reconciled.

I have a meeting with Administrator Garvey on December 15 to continue our discussion on the possible re-programming of funds to OASIS. At this time we have $11.5M assigned to OASIS and our original request was $27.3M. I'm also continuing to work with the FAA Budget Director Brian Riley on the same subject. AOPA has been very helpful in this matter. Our national OASIS Representative Jeff Barnes will have a more detailed report on this in the next NAATS News.

Additionally, I'm now involved in the Safer Skies work group initiative of the Administrator. Previously NAATS ARS Liaison Dan Petlowany was our sole representative to this group but after the General Aviation Summit a few weeks ago it was recommended that I should join Dan to help further general aviation goals. The next meeting is next week. Another meeting of the General Aviation Summit Pilot Weather Briefing sub group is tentatively scheduled for the first week of January, with the full group meeting in February.

Pay negotiations resume the week of January 10. We expect the Agency's initial pay proposal at this meeting.

We are continuing to attend the necessary congressional fundraisers to press our issues politically. A supplemental authorization for the FAA in the operations area is possible.

DETAILS/WORK GROUPS

A reminder -- if you are interested in serving as a NAATS representative on either a detail to FAA Headquarters or on a work group please send us your name. It would be helpful if you would indicate your area of interest (labor relations, automation, operations, etc) and whether you want consideration for a one-year detail or to a work group. We anticipate selecting representatives to a number of these in the near future.

You should feel free to contact NAATS Headquarters anytime; after all we exist to serve you. Please understand, however, that it's very busy right now. In fact, I've been at NAATS Headquarters just three full days in the last two months and Mike Doring has not been here much more than that. If you have matters that require our attention by all means contact us and be patient; we'll get back to you as soon as we can. If, however, these are questions that your regional representatives can and should address then please contact them first. The Regional Directors are knowledgeable on all pending matters. Your consideration and understanding are appreciated.

Thanks and Happy Holidays to all.

Wally

Back to Table of Contents

DC DATA Dump

Daniel Petlowany - ARS Liaison

Rob Erlick - ARR Liaison

Donna Holmes - ATP Liaison

Kate Breen- ATX Liaison

ATX

The one big issue in ATX is the staffing for FY00; the FAA has authorized hiring 125 new Air Traffic Controllers for the Flight Service Option. Now the only problem being, is they don't have enough money to train them all, so we maybe will see 70-100 new hires this year if we're lucky. With OASIS being delayed, the FAA is also going to have to look at hiring new controllers for the FSDPS side of the house to keep that fine tuned piece of @#*& M1FC running. As I get updates on both these issues I will pass them along.

As we speak the staff around me is putting together numbers in regards to attrition rates over the next couple of years. One set of numbers is if NAATS bargaining unit members get a respectable raise, the other set of numbers is if the same NAATS bargaining unit members get the raise the FAA finds respectable!

I've also been sitting in on some meetings regarding DF; it seems that AF has been shutting down DF equipment as they see fit. NAATS is currently working on getting a list of DF's that have been shut down, that should not have been shut down.

Finally, I attended a Challenger Session, which is a FAA sponsored meeting annually between the FAA and Industry. The Administrator was there to run the meeting and a few things that came out of it were:

Industry likes the communication between them and the FAA

Industry doesn't like the lack of systematic planning and lack of follow through by the FAA.

Industry doesn't like the lack of standardization, (that one FAA thing, but it does it nine different ways!)

Industry thinks the FAA is being led from the bottom, i.e.UNIONS. I wonder who's feeding them that!

Industry thinks the UNIONS have to much influence over technology decisions. HUH?!

Industry did stand up and say they would support the FAA

in trying to secure more funds from the Senate/Congress.

It was a very interesting meeting in which I did make just a few comments when asked if anyone had anything to say!!!! Basically, who do you want making technological decisions, someone who has been sitting behind a desk for 10-15yrs or someone fresh off the boards? That I was a little upset at first about Industry wanting to keep the UNIONS out of decisions regarding technology and that the UNIONS should only be concerned with pay and working conditions, but then I was flattered that Industry thought we had that much power over the FAA. By the way aren't working conditions and technological upgrades one in the same? (rhetorical!!!) Last but not least I said I couldn't speak for the other UNIONS (PASS/NATCA who weren't there!) but as far as we're concerned we need technology, staffing, and the respect we deserve as professionals, after all we're here to help!! The Administrator thanked me for my comments and that's the end!

ATP

GA SUMMIT - The 1^st General Aviation Summit was held in DC last month. Industry and FAA Mgmt from Flight Service along with our NAATS Board of Directors addressed a range of topics that related to what industry wanted from Flight Service in the future. There was much discussion on ICAO briefings and Requirements as well as Pilot Weather Briefing. Industry was very supportive of Flight Service. However in the future they would like to see more interpretive briefings which would require additional training for our specialists. It was amazing to see all three groups in agreement on so many issues. They have scheduled follow on meetings to come to consensus and start working on some of the priority issues. The problem: FUNDING!! and UPPER FAA Management Support!!

We hope to partner with Industry on the goals of Flight Sevice in the Future. So even though everything still looks pretty bleak-Don’t jump ship-NAATS is fighting extremely hard on the National Level for the "Renaissance of Flight Service."

OASIS - Major discussions have been taking place regarding the loss of funding for the Oasis program. Wally and ATP have agreed to sign an MOU on the implementation of Oasis however if we cannot get the funding restored this may never happen. We are preparing it so we are ready if a miracle happens.

OASIS CONSOLES - ANI has come back with their comments to all the facility responses on console placement. Most proposal were good however a lot of them included out of scope need to include carpeting, lighting, UPS systems etc. We are going to try and work some of these issues into the MOU.

LAAS/LAIS - ATP is still working on a proposal for LAIS.

We may be asked to reinstate Airport Advisory Service or Remote Airport Information Service to our customers. If we don't jump up and say we want to do this, there is a contractor who will. In fact the Regional Airline Association (RAA) is already making a bid for some of the duties. Right now the RAA can only provide wind direction and speed, altimeter settings, favored runways, and known or observed surface or airborne traffic. What they would like to provide and have been told no by the FAA so far is clearance relay, control instructions, and a few other things. So before you come up with reasons why we can't provide these services maybe we need to look at creative ways to be able to provide these services to our customers.

ACD/BCS Equipment - ATP has signed the ACD letter that states that all silent monitoring capability shall be inhibited in all administrative offices that are not occupied by first line supervisors. All facreps should have a copy in the update packages.

The proposals from the national ACD meeting in FTW is continuing to progress. ATP is awaiting responses from AOS on the problems identified. Once these are received we will develop an Action plan. Also in the planning stages is a workgroup being developed to look at all the national parameter settings for the system. It looks like we may have 1 national and 1 field rep on this group.

FDC Notam System - It looks like the numbers are going to run out prior to the end of the year so you will probably be seeing the FDC numbers going back to initial sequence. They will then roll over to 00 numbers at the first of the year.

Til Next Month...

Back to Table of Contents

MORE Y2K News

Chuck Kuennen

Y2K Liaison

Let me set the record straight on FSDPS training. All 500’s have been notified that FSDPS are operational 2152’s and must be included in the Y2K BCCP Training and that AFSS AT Managers responsible for each FSDPS facility include them in the training program.

At the last Points of Contact meeting, Nov 2-4, I addressed that one region was requiring their Flight Watch to be staffed for the rollover and this was inconsistent with the other regions. A decision was made not to staff the Flight Watch position. There was no national plan for advertising the Flight Watch position as having extended hours and we thought that the extra bodies could be better utilized on the operations floor.

I am attaching a list of services that Flight Service provides to Centers, TRACONS and Towers. It became apparent in the ‘war games’ that our support would be valuable in an ATC Zero or lessor event where immediate aircraft recovery is essential and for timely business resumption. Ed Castagna, ATM at PNM, and I emphasized some of these services during the games. I worked this list up and presented it at the Points of Contact meeting, Nov 2-4, it was well received. It is also printed in the November issue of the ‘ATS Y2K BCCP UPDATE’ which is an excellent source for finding out what we are doing to prepare for the rollover. FAA has a Y2K website at: http://www.faay2k.com. This site available only through the FAA Intranet, but your facility ATM should be able to access the site to get answers to your questions.

I attended the last few days of the General Aviation Summit held here in D.C., Nov 15-19. I want to tell you how encouraged I am about the future of our option even though OASIS implementation continues to be a battle. There was consensus among the GA representatives that they want Flight Service to stay. This summit could not have come at a better time and would not have been possible if it were not for NAATS and ATP’s willingness to listen to our concerns. There is a lot of work left, but I am confident this effort will not get washed out into the Potomac. We have a vehicle to attach these recommendations to, Vice-President Gore’s "Safer Skies" initiative. In the words of one GA representative, "If these recommendations are not supported, there will be a ‘mushroom cloud’ in Congress." I would like every non-dues paying member to reconsider what benefits they have and will be getting as a result of NAATS. The time has come, there are no excuses!

Back to Table of Contents

---

Flight Service To Support Centers/TRACONs/Towers

Chuck Kuennen, Y2K Co-Representative

In our last POC meeting (Sept 15/16) and during the Maxi Game (Oct 5-7) the ATC representatives were in agreement that Flight Service provides valuable support for Centers, TRACONS and Towers. This support could be critical in an ATC Zero or lesser event where immediate aircraft recovery is essential and for timely business resumption.

a). AFSS’s have multiple use of frequencies; discreet, common (122.2), VOR, UHF, and emergency frequencies. These frequencies provide an umbrella like network of remote communications outlets (RCO) by which Flight Service can advise pilots which frequencies to contact an ATC facility on, relay alternate control instructions, broadcast general instructions or advisories over HIWAS outlets.

b). As an alternate source in relaying critical ATC instructions via various voice (intra-facility, public telephone network systems (PTNS) and data entry (Service B, Systems Atlanta, AIS) through-out the NAS, including military base operations, air carrier operations and airport operations.

c). AFSS can provide critical weather advisories in the event ATC facilities lose weather information.

d). Many AFSS’s have digital DF which is used to provide emergency services to lost or disoriented pilots. Flight Service specialists are also trained to provide DF/ADF/VOR orientations which may be needed in a multiple equipment outage scenario.

e). Flight Service routinely relays ATC instructions, SVFR and IFR clearances where there is no Center or Approach Control coverage.

f). AFSS’s are responsible for the timely issuance of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) critical to safety of flight.

h). AFFS’s have the capability to reset VOR’s through our RMCF if maintenance is not available and to monitor the VOR’s in the event of signal loss to the Center and MCC monitors.

i). Provide critical search and rescue services for IFR as well as VFR aircraft.

j.) Model One Full Capacity (M1FC) is used to input flight plans, both commercial and general aviation. Should center-stored flight plans be dropped or are not being accepted, Flight Service can become a filter to manually help input air carrier and other IFR flight plans as the data person at Center will be overwhelmed… O

Back to Table of Contents

FAA Chief Finds Flights Scarce on New Years Eve.

Aviation: Airlines have reduced their schedules because many would-be travelers will be watching computers for a Y2K glitch or celebrating the millennium.

Stephen Barr, Rajiv Chandrasekaran,

Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- To express her confidence that the Year 2000 computer glitch won't affect air travel, Federal Aviation Administration director Jane F. Garvey pledged to be high in the sky, flying from Washington to the West Coast, when the new year rolls around. But keeping that promise is turning out to be tougher than expected because nobody else, it seems, wants to fly anywhere this New Year's Eve.

The flight Garvey had hoped to take from Reagan National Airport--American Airlines Flight 1799, leaving at 6:06 p.m. for Dallas-Fort Worth and connecting on to San Francisco--was canceled a few weeks ago. Several days later, the next flight she was booked on, a 5:13 p.m. departure for Dallas, also was wiped from the schedule.

She's now on her third reservation, hoping that American Flight 1099 will take off as planned and deposit her in California seven minutes after midnight on Jan. 1. However, only a paltry 25 people--two-thirds of them from the news media--have made bookings so far on the 138-seat Boeing MD-80.

"We really have found the world, come the evening of Dec. 31, is divided into two parts: those who are celebrating the millennium and those whose eyes will be glued to a computer to find out if the chips work," said American spokesman John Hotard. "Both of those groups will be in place on the ground when the great event occurs or doesn't occur."

Last New Year's Eve, American reduced its schedule by about 10%. This year, the airline expects to cancel about 20% of its scheduled flights.

"We've got low demand," Hotard said.

Other airlines are facing the same situation. United Airlines has eliminated 22% of its regularly scheduled flights on Dec. 31 and 12% on New Year's Day. Virgin Atlantic Airways will ground its entire fleet for 24 hours starting at midday on Dec. 31. And Frontier Airlines, a low-fare carrier based in Denver that averages 94 flights a day, plans to scrap 34 flights on Dec. 31 and 18 on Jan. 1 because of insufficient reservations; the airline will not operate any flights after 9 p.m. on the 31st.

"Nobody wants to be in the air on New Year's Eve," said Frontier spokeswoman Elise Eberwein.

Airline officials and travel agents say the lack of interest in flying on the holiday isn't just because of the possibility of computer problems related to the rollover to 2000. Most people want to be at their destination of choice--from Times Square to the comfort of their living room--by the evening of Dec. 31.

"The primary reason seems to be that nobody wants to be anywhere other than a special place with special people when the clock strikes midnight," said Steve Loucks, a spokesman for the Carlson Wagonlit travel agency, which has 1,300 offices nationwide. "They don't want to be sitting in an airplane."

Sophie Bethune, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Assn., said that although most airlines are canceling or consolidating more flights than last year, the moves have nothing to do with fears of Y2K disasters. A poll conducted for the association found that less than 10% of potential travelers said they would avoid travel on New Year's Eve for safety or other reasons, she said.

Garvey isn't the only high-profile Washingtonian having a problem getting aloft on New Year's Eve. White House Y2K advisor John Koskinen had hoped to take a shuttle flight from Washington to New York so that he would be in the air at 7 p.m., or midnight "Universal Time," the clock observed around the world by air-traffic controllers. But Delta Air Lines and US Airways have cut the number of shuttle flights, making it difficult for Koskinen to return from New York the same night to carry out his duties at the White House's Y2K crisis management center.

Koskinen, though, intends to find a way to be in the air. "One way or another, I will be on an airplane," he vowed.

Back to Table of Contents

---

Compensation Bulletin 2

Don McLennan

ANM Regional Director

Highlights of Past Work

These notes are based on a review of the previous 11 Compensation Bulletins that were released last year and earlier this year. I have tried to capture the highlights of those Bulletins.

In Bulletin #1, I discussed the need to develop a final product to be delivered to the full negotiating team for their consideration and it had to be value driven. It went on to say, "To ensure our success we must have been thoughtful, open-minded, and yet far-sighted in our development of a new compensation system. Remember we have already developed a new classification standard that is now ready for implementation. NAATS will have completed our goals for compensation, if we implement a system, compatible with what we created during Reclassification. It must move our bargaining unit forward, maintain parity with other bargaining units within the Agency, and reward those employees who are most productive."

Based on our meeting last week with the new management negotiating team, their common theme and apparently sole focus seems to be there is no money in the FAA budget to even have a meaningful conversation about what we have been working on for the past several years. They indicated they would like to implement those aspects of our pay proposal they feel they can. However, at this time they have not been able to share with us what those would be. They only received our proposal on November 6, and as such, probably need time to engage in conversations amongst themselves and the Administrator to determine where they want to go.

Realism or "Sorry, We Gave the Money Away."

At this point it would be misleading to tell you we are anywhere near agreement. If we were dealing with the Air Traffic Division I do believe we would at least be somewhat close. But we are not. We are dealing with the Administrator’s team of mostly Human Resource people and her attorney. It is, unfortunately, all too typical of the Agency to urge their employees on to new heights, to encourage them to "think outside the box", to wish them success in moving forward to meet the challenges of the future, or simply to change because that is currently in vogue. It is with a certain degree of sadness I share with you my personal belief that they, unfortunately, never fail to let us down at the finish line. I am not saying their intentions are less than genuine, it is really their inability to control their own fate that constantly leaves them coming up short. Thus, three years ago it was fashionable to be discussing exciting and novel compensation systems. Today, though, we are told we must be "realistic." I think this is a euphemism for, "Sorry we already gave all the money away!" There are roughly 45,000+ employees in the FAA and the Administrator blew the budget on the first 15,000 up to the trough. Are we disappointed? You can’t even imagine the depth of frustration, sadness and maybe now even some cynicism on behalf of the several people who have been working this issue with the FAA for YEARS. It was a lifestyle for some of us. Can you imagine how "You need to be realistic" sets with us? Enough said.

Architecture vs. Compensation

In Bulletin #2 I explained there was a great deal of work to be done in the area of agreeing on how to proceed in developing a system and what that system would cost. The Agency (at least at that time) shared their need to stay within normal budget parameters. They were willing to discuss, in fact pressing the issue, the need to develop a new and improved compensation system that was particularly necessary (their characterization) to the FSS option. In fact I said, " NAATS is clearly making a commitment to evaluate a new compensation system based on the costs of a per person basis as opposed to organizational costs. The organizational costs may be more in the ‘architecture’ area than in the compensation area." This point seems to have escaped the new management negotiating team. If we are to continue to discuss the FAA’s desire to change the FSS option, (i.e., Consolidation, part-timing, Transfer of Functions, etc.) we must agree this is where we will find cost savings, greater efficiencies, improved customer products and the entire litany of the FAA’s "business plan."

How Much?

Bulletin #3 was the "costing" bulletin. It went to explaining how the Agency needed to try and determine the cost of the FSS option’s personnel to enable meaningful discussions about potential costs increases (e.g., CIC and OJTI differential) as opposed to simply discussing them conceptually and having no idea of what the bill would eventually be. This has still not been done. The management team seemed very concerned that we might not be able to conduct good faith negotiations if we didn’t know the dollar value of our discussion. Of course, that takes money and the Administrator must award a contractor some significant $ to tell her what the FSS option costs the Agency. I know, pretty weird. It gets stranger still.

What Do We Want?

When Bulletin #4 was written, it captured our efforts in exploring the values inherent in the FSS option. I said, "They ranged from ‘people want more pay’ to ‘status quo’ to ‘recognizing differences in workload’ to ‘getting paid more with fewer people’ to ‘expectations that nobody loses money during transition’ and so and on." I would dare say there was little, or nothing that was missed. This first session was exploratory in nature on behalf of all workgroup members but provided a great deal of information about what NAATS expected from new pay. It also highlighted the fact that our bargaining unit is split right down the middle and that just about as many people want to change as there are those who want to remain the same." I added, "This was all captured way back in our first Reclassification meetings."

The significance of the meetings was to try and get in touch with what was really important within the FSS world’s expectations. To be successful here we wanted to avoid those banal clich�s we realized would not fit within the FSS world. We felt no need to design a system based on the expectations of the contemporary "reform experts" of the day, but which could not possibly be effective or productive within the culture and operational environment of the FSS option. As you know we received information covering just about a little of everything. It created a broad spectrum on which to try and build a singular compensation system. At the same time management had some needs that did not necessarily fit within any one new system. This created a tremendously difficult task that was sure to satisfy less than everyone but which none-the-less had to be undertaken. To simply walk through pay negotiations three years later and say, "We are actually pretty happy with what we’ve got and would just like to be exempted from changing" would be to let management determine our fate and disregard are responsibilities under the law to represent our bargaining unit members. Therefore, we continued to move forward.

Architecture, Again

By this time the "Architecture" concept, once again, reared its massive head. We articulated our position that we were not opposed to discussing these concepts but wanted to make clear that we were not capitulating our rights to determine which ones were worth jointly pursuing. Bulletin #5 shared the thoughts; "it was rewarding to discover the management members of our group felt as strongly about this as we do. It is also their understanding that we do not have a preconceived system in mind and we are developing it jointly to fit what we know to be, not what some would like to see in the future. We will discuss ways to build subsystems into our new plan to allow for change, but it would not be under the banner of trying to implement any specific program through a new pay system. I imagine architecture will be very important in being considered within the development process of a new compensation system, but in the context of allowing for change in the future and being sure that the system can be managed effectively." What does all that mean?

It was supposed to mean that management and the Union, participating on the workgroup, were in agreement we had no hidden agendas and no "required" outcomes. There had been other workgroups with different charters that reached, to our way of thinking, really obtuse and far fetched conclusions on where, what and how the FSS should approach the millennium. We wanted to insure we were not opposed to discussing any thoughtful or productive solutions to change to fit the next century but that we possessed, on the work group, the subject matter experts and the knowledge to perform this task carefully, thoughtfully with candor and honesty. Again, there were neither hidden agendas nor any preconceived outcomes to meet. What was paramount here was the need to reach a conclusion that what this workgroup designed, developed and presented to the full negotiation team was the complete package, incorporating both management and union needs and desires. To that end, before being unilaterally dismissed, I believe we were succeeding beyond even our own expectations.

Flight Service Has High "Productivity"

Since by now we were on a roll, in Bulletin #6 I asked the question, "Why pay people more?" I added, this was a question in desperate need of an answer. My conclusion, based on the work of the group was, "Productivity is probably the cornerstone of most people’s response to that question. Our time on position is phenomenal compared with other bargaining units. Look to the operations per specialist factor, it is growing in all of our facilities. This is probably due to a slight growth in the GA activity as well as an ever-decreasing workforce. Also, we can now demonstrate differences where we couldn’t before. Our new traffic count more clearly reflects those aspects of our work that previously have gone unrecognized and had not warranted recording. This is a very important aspect in successfully implementing a new pay plan based on productivity. You should not be performing work that is integral to the system but is simply not captured because nobody thought it was important. Finally, we acknowledge that workload, volume and the complexity of the operation, taken all together, make it clear that there are different levels of work when reviewing all 61 AFSS operations nation-wide."

Small Facilities Want a Fair Deal

I will always receive a tremendous amount of push back on this bulletin from facilities that perceive themselves as "smaller, level one type" facilities. This is unfortunate because that is not how I would characterize them. They are, realistically, afraid of being ripe for consolidation if they end up in a new system displaying a traffic count lower than other facilities. However, that is already available under current information without any new system designs. Their concern is they might not enjoy the same compensation increases as a facility that is recognized with a higher traffic count.

They quickly point out they are as busy, if not busier than larger staffed facilities, and contend that certain aspects of any traffic count cannot be quantified accurately and are, therefore, misleading. I can only say that this was not persuasive to the workgroup when laying out all 61 AFSS traffic counts and considering dual volume levels, workload, and staffing. The case can certainly be made that traffic alone is not the overriding, all inclusive, far reaching determinate of who is more productive than who. But what falls out when you look at everyone across the nation is the immutable fact there are some facilities that are busier because of weather, demographics, geography and staffing. In the world of the "Why pay people more?" question, and to change to fit the next ten years, it was not reasonable to dodge the tough questions and say everybody is doing the same thing and everybody deserves to be compensated in exactly the same way. However, let me be the first to say, if the FAA is not going to live up to those aspects of necessary change agreed to in the workgroup, it is very likely NAATS will adopt the posture of not changing anything. This will not happen through a sheer surrender of current benefits. Instead, the Agency will encounter NAATS’ alternate position of what we need to remain status quo. All members are to be treated identically since we are all performing the same functions in the same manner and to the same degree.

"Performance-Based" Disappointment

The Agency needs to recognize they are not going to get it both ways. No productivity recognition (i.e., no Reclassification recognition, no differentiation among our bargaining unit members) will lead to negotiations with a Union where everyone is performing the same, producing the same and meeting the identical demands made of them. The Agency will have accomplished the task of wasting thousands of personnel hours and hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars in recanting, their apparently insincere, desire to develop a new compensation system to meet the needs of the future. Their plan is clearly to fleece their employees in the name of becoming "performance- based," even though they have no performance system in place to accomplish this. If I sound disappointed, you have no idea. Remember though, I warned you it would get stranger still.

Before I move on, I want to reassert a point I made in my last NAATS News article. The Union has been treated fairly and respectably by our management counterparts in the AT Division. You will have to draw your own conclusions as to who are the people my disappointment is directed at.

Looking At Differences

On to Bulletin #7 then. Here, we discovered a number of people in places and occupations, which were not effectively covered under the compensation system developed to that point. We identified FSDPS personnel, ATCSCC personnel, AAL Region FSS Personnel and their Specific Issues, New Hires/New Entrants and Developmentals. Before we finished we nailed down the New Hires/New Entrants and Develpmentals but the persons and their issues have still not been addressed.

Members’ Concerns

We hit a higher plane with Bulletin #8. This was the first Bulletin where I began to receive lots of mail. Oddly, none of it was directed at what was in the Bulletin but, instead, with what was on those people’s minds that shared their fear NAATS was derailed and heading down the wrong road. I always believed these were letters written earnestly, and honestly, sharing the author’s frustrations with changes that had not been adequately or acceptably explained. The failure to adequately explain is mine alone and I get to take another shot at it here.

Problems with a "Tiered" System

I wrote, "but the question is do we want to have more than a singular, FPL status? We could decide, for example, that we want someone to serve at the lower end of a pay band for the first three years they are a journey-person, then progress to higher levels of status. Probably the negative response to this would be that once a person is facility rated they should receive ‘full’ controller pay and we should not create some sort of ‘B scale’ pay system. Also, would this be creating two levels of experienced controllers that could possibly put the Agency at risk if there were to be a post-accident question of competency (that is, a legal issue)? Is this newcomer really as competent as a more experienced controller is? A major issue is, what do you use as reasonable criteria (to be determined) to decide when and how to increase someone’s pay to the level of the more experienced controller? What kind of developmental opportunities are there for our people to become better controllers instead of only developing themselves to move into management positions?"

3 Level Career Proposal

The Core Compensation Plan is that under which you forfeit any and all future WIGs. Even the contractor the Administrator hired to "assist" us in our deliberations thought it was a little harsh to drop someone in a pay band and never, ever experience the possibility of a pay increase on anything other than performance for the rest of their lives. Therefore NAATS, in conjunction with management and our contract expert on the workgroup, developed the concept of three levels of journey-person experience at any singular facility level. Once you became facility rated you would spend three years developing seasoning through experience and then move to a higher paying plateau. After attaining the intermediate level you move to the expert level through advanced qualifications and training. At each of these passages you receive an increase in pay. While I am not the expert, I would expect most of you would feel this accommodation is better than simply surrendering your future WIG increases and confronting a world with no possible increases other than "performance" awards. Don’t think I don’t realize there are those who are going to say’ "I simply don’t want to go to that system, I just want to keep what I have." I know change is more difficult for some than for others. However, when that is the only game in town you had better own up to being as good as you can be at it or accept your fate will be determined by others. NAATS accepted the challenge and worked with all our might to represent and protect you.

Annual Increases

Moving full steam ahead we jumped through Bulletin #9 and into annual increases. There are those that would accuse me of not even understanding what I wrote and they may have some validity. When reviewing what was said I must confess I was pleased I had grasped as much as I had up to that point, but maybe could have done a little better with the explanation. What I wrote on OSI/SCI was, "NAATS’ presented their desire to establish a policy on annual increases. We have had extensive briefings on both the ARA and NATCA methods of doing this. It is imperative that even though we are attempting to develop a specialized pay system for Controllers we must still, in some way, connect to the FAA Core Compensation System. This is the FAA wide pay system that will replace the General Schedule. Primarily, we are interested in connecting within the Core system components of the Organizational Success Indicator (OSI) and the Superior Contribution Increase (SCI).

Within Grades Would Disappear

"There is a ‘Payroll Rise’ of 1.6% caused by your annual WIG increase. Over the eighteen years of getting from a step 1 to 10 that is the average annual increase. In the Core System, WIG increases are abolished and, instead, a pool of money is created using the WIG money to fund the OSI and SCI components. The OSI is paid annually to everyone and the SCI is paid annually only to the organizations’ top 15% best performers. NAATS agreed to adopt a formula for the OSI/SCI 1.6% total pay-out whereby the bargaining unit members would realize the following: the bargaining unit will receive the national GI equivalent plus 1.2%. If in a specific year the annual OSI from the FAA is greater than the GI equivalent plus 1.2%. NAATS will split the money beyond that amount equally between the remaining .4% of the SCI pool and the OSI pool plus 1.2% by a 50/50 split between the SCI pool and the OSI pool."

I have doctored that statement today to accurately reflect what I believe to be compatible with NAATS’ current proposal. Try and understand what that would mean to you in the way of an annual increase beyond that which you already receive.

Pay Band Design

We went back discussing how we envisioned potential pay increases under the developing compensation system in Bulletin #10. This was mostly dependent on how we designed pay bands and how many levels of bands would there be in the system. This was to cover both facility levels and journey-person levels within a specific facility level. There were many questions in this bulletin that have remained unanswered today. Some of the more important ones that we did work on were, "Pay bumps would begin to differ at the completion of the first level of developmental training. This is an important topic to discuss later - how often do you want to reward developmental employees? Should we establish incremental increases at the developmental levels, or pay the entire difference between Academy graduation and FPL certification all at once? Once you reach the FPL level there may be several bands to move through to become a senior level specialist." And later in the bulletin, "We also discussed a five level (three now and two for the future development of the option) facility structure. Once you become a facility rated FPL you will finally enter the FPL ranks, at one of three distinct facility levels of pay. What is the relationship between a level one facility to a level two facility to a level three facility? It will depend on how much money for implementation is available, and agreed to, at the contract negotiations level."

Three Facilities Levels

Concerning the first topic of multiple journey-person levels in a facility we addressed this earlier when we talked about trying to implement a system with other than a singular, one time, bump in pay upon attaining the FPL level of proficiency. As for the later, NAATS has designed a system that allows for at least three levels of facilities based on the new traffic count’s "index" that covers volume, workload, and staffing. It allows for movement between facilities for those wanting the opportunity to earn more, as well as diversity for those interested more in locating to certain regions of the country. It allows that you no longer need to be promoted but recognizes that you are already an FPL simple moving between facilities with differing levels of activity and staffing.

Conversion Factors

Finally, in Bulletin #11 we discussed the need to research pay system "conversion" factors to insure we didn’t sacrifice anything more than that we have already identified. I shared with you that, "Pay system ‘conversion’ is that process of how to move from one pay system to another pay system. Our view is that we would like to ‘buy out’ our pending WIG increases. This means that you would have added to your initial ‘new,’ base pay, in the new system that percentage of a WIG you had already earned within the old system." Also, "We need to agree with management on a break-even amount to make an ATRA roll-in acceptable to both management and the Union. That is, how much money would go to an employee and how much money reserved to the government so they do not incur any additional expenses as result of taxes, retirement, etc.? The Agency agreed with NATCA and PASS to an amount of 4.1%."

These were two of the more tangible areas we had agreed to in the workgroup before being told to cease further development. I do not know if, as a result of negotiations, they will remain as presently agreed to by the parties. It would be a shame if the good work done in consensus between the union and management had to be redone because the players changed. I think that is the ultimate rub in dealing with management. If we negotiate something that higher management doesn’t like will we find ourselves back here again with a new group of people? I do not think it gets any weirder than that.

Since the Bulletins Ended

Since terminating the Compensation Bulletins I had not heard from anyone except those who shared with me they found the bulletins confusing and they didn’t say much. While that is not what an author wants to hear, I am pretty sympathetic. The subject matter is not something which most of us have any great depth of knowledge about and the workgroup was researching and developing as we went so most of the information was pretty "soft". I was therefore surprised when at the convention there seemed to be a significant number of members who asked that, the above notwithstanding, would I continue to try and publish something to keep you informed? The answer is, of course. I simply thought no one cared and it has been an awful lot of work. This is why I have thought to go back and recount where we were in such a way that we can view yesterday’s news in today’s environment. I hope you find this helpful. Keep an eye out for future volumes and I will do my best to make them as clear and precise as I can.

 

Back to Table of Contents

---

OASIS Program Report

Jeff Barnes

NAATS OASIS Rep

Rumors have been flying through the field regarding the status of the OASIS program. They have been pretty rampant at Headquarters also. I want to let you know what I know about where the program is and where it’s going.

FAA Commits $1.5 Million More for OASIS

As you no doubt know the OASIS program took a huge budget cut. We were expecting approximately 25 million dollars for FY2000. What we actually got was 10 million. Ever since we received word of the cut we have been working hard to figure out what we can do within the limits imposed on us by our budget. Wally Pike continues to work with the Agency to identify more funding for the OASIS program, but as of now our only expectation of more money in FY2000 is through the reprogramming of 1.5 million into OASIS that the FAA is able to do without Congressional intervention. That 1.5 million has been promised to us and is significant in the current planning for the program. The promise to reprogram 1.5 million into OASIS is a sign of the commitment that the Agency has to the program. In the Flight Service world we are used to our programs being whittled down to fund Center and Tower programs. Now we are on the receiving end, a refreshing change.

FY2001 Funding Important

The plan as of now is to deploy the first operational site in August 2001. This is necessary to accommodate engineering efforts at a much lower level due to lack of funding. This relies on a significant improvement in funding levels in FY2001. As soon as the funding for FY2001 is known to be adequate, Harris will hire new engineers and programmers to replace those that have been moved off of OASIS. This will necessitate a period of training and familiarization with the system before those new people are productive. Thus the August date for the first operational system. The slow down will be of some benefit to us because it will give us more time to analyze and devise solutions to problems. Also, the contract with Harris is such that we are not locked into hardware that will be obsolete before it is deployed. The hardware will be acquired by Harris just prior to deployment, so that workstations that at one time would have been 200 MHz Pentium II’s would now be 500 MHz Pentium III’s, and will become whatever is standard at the time of deployment to your facility.

Final Configuration Scheduled for 2002

The first systems will not be the final system configuration. Some work will still need to be done to reach the final state. The final state is scheduled to deploy in June 2002. One of the major differences between the initial and final versions of the operational system will be in the area of weather graphics. Weather graphics is continuing to be worked on in Harris’ own Internal Research and Development program, so it continues forward through the funding cut. This is possible because IR&D is not funded by any specific program. It works on applications that will have benefits in multiple areas. In the case of weather graphics, they will have benefit not only in OASIS, but also WARP and commercial applications. The graphics that are developed in IR&D will not be specifically for OASIS, so there will be differences that will have to be corrected before the final system configuration. The IR&D graphics set will be distributed with the initial system, and the OASIS-specific graphics set will be included in the final system configuration. There will be some work still needed beyond that in the graphics area to develop packages specific to the needs of Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

The OASIS consoles will still be deployed, but the options on that contract will not be exercised at this time so there will have to be a re-negotiation of the contract. This could have some benefits to us. We will be looking at some possibilities.

Human Factors Team Continues to Work

The OASIS Human Factors Team has continued working hard to make OASIS the best it can. They attended operational testing in Atlantic City to observe and to work on some problems. The Team will continue working during the slow down, although likely not at the pace they have maintained to this point. The problems identified during the latest round of testing will be brought to the Team to prioritize and to identify workable solutions. The Team will maintain this role throughout the program. They may also be called upon to identify improvements and enhancements to the program throughout its life cycle and may also be called on to look at other programs such as the voice switch.

Framework for Improvement Needed

The program schedule will be solidified via an MOU that will be written between NAATS and the Agency. It will define the schedule of development and will address several other areas of interest within the OASIS program. One thing we will include is a framework for improvement of the system over its life cycle. Too often we have seen improvements be the first thing cut from any budget because of the thinking that the system is already working, so there’s no pressing need to enhance it. That won’t work with OASIS. The information available from other sources continues to change and evolve. The OASIS must do the same to ensure our viability into the future. Also, the AOPA is very concerned that if DUATS is incorporated into OASIS that it will not evolve like the current DUATS does being under competing vendors. This MOU should address some of the those concerns expressed by the AOPA. When this MOU is signed it will make it difficult for the FAA to play with the money allocated for improvements. Of course, there’s nothing we can do about our friends on the Hill except lobby effectively to ensure their support for OASIS and our Option. To that end, I recommend you have five or ten dollars withheld from your paycheck for the PAC. That money can be extremely effective in presenting our case on the Hill.

We have had an initial meeting attended by Wally Pike and myself to agree to a schedule strategy and the need to draft an MOU. We will be drafting MOU language soon. I know this seems to be a system that will never be fielded. Even I find myself sometimes thinking those thoughts. But there is a core of people in Headquarters that includes the Union that are working hard to see that the system does become a reality, and a good reality. Unfortunately we have no control over Congress, so we find ourselves the innocent victim of a fight between giants. However, we believe that this shall pass and that our funding will come back up so that we can deploy a system that will serve us well into the future.

Back to Table of Contents

ACD Workgroup Report

Homer McReady, AOO AFSS

During the week of November 1-5, I attended the ACD workgroup in Dallas, Texas. Representatives from BCS Technologies and the FAA were present.

There are many dedicated people at BCS and the FAA, who are involved with the phone system (ACD). They are very willing to help make this work for all of us, and want to hear about your phone problems. When you experience a problem, hit the bad line key before you disconnect, note the time from the phone display and your agent number (this is on the display at the supervisory area). The following problems were noted at this conference, and as you read this, they are being forwarded through the proper channels for discussions and solutions.

BACKGROUND FROM BCS TECHNOLOGIES

We virtually can't outgrow our system --- We have the capability of having over 1,300 phones at each site with an adaptation for up to 4,000 phones per site.

Lots of call routing capability --- We can virtually route calls however we want, example: route calls geographically by state, equal number of calls per specialist, short flight briefings, long flight briefings, etc. the capability of the system is there.

Multi-Site capabilities --- The FAA bought this software, but are not currently using it, what this does is to join a group of facilities, if a call goes to a facility and that facility is busy, it will go to one of the other facilities. The FAA does not have the necessary lines between the facilities hooked up.

Custom Displays --- The FAA bought this software, but are not currently using it, what this software does is enable one facility to look at another's display.

Caller ID -- We have the capability for caller ID, but we can't use this because our trunk lines coming into our facilities are not capable.

PC Phone Control --- This is an available option, not purchased by the FAA --- what this does is enable a specialist to tape a message and be able to play it while talking to a customer --- for example, a specialist could tape "Altoona Flight Service, May I help you?" and play this when a call comes in instead of saying it each and every time.

Intelligent Announcement System --- This is an available option, not purchased by the FAA - this will tell the caller on hold 1) How many specialists are available 2) The estimated wait time 3) The number of calls in the queue 4) The wait time of the longest call waiting. This would cost approximately $24,000 per site.

Reports and Displays --- The FAA purchased this option - This will show you virtually everything, it can show you every key pressed by the specialist from the time they signed on till the time they signed off; also, it can format reports in whatever way it is instructed to do so.

Unformatted Custom Reports --- The FAA bought this option - This enables reports from the ACD/VRS to be transferred to a PC.

Future --- The ability to take e-mail messages on this system such as flight plans, also the ability to talk over the internet, these are being worked on. They are also working on a VRS software package that will enable you to go back and record over a portion of a recording instead of re-recording it. They said this will be done "hopefully in a year."

NOTES

There cannot be any fixes on the ACD/VRS system between Nov. 15-Jan. 7 because of Y2K and also from Feb. 1-Mar. 8 due to leap year, unless there is an emergency or a waver is granted, which is a difficult process.

E-Boards --- The e-boards (to display messages and statistics) have been purchased, they are in a warehouse in Norman, OK, they will be installed. The delay is because there was no requirement for them in the old system (they were following the requirements for the old system). They have to wait for a waiver to be able to install them. The cost of each is approximately $6,000, they are presently in 4 sites and no installations will take place during the above mentioned no fix periods.

Why the new system --- The Denro and Litton systems in the facilities were not Y2K compliant. The systems were insupportable because parts had to come from the "salvage yard" and were too hard to get. These 2 systems were technology from the late 1970s. The Denro/Litton systems could not be upgraded. After considering these factors, the decision was made to replace the system. The new system had to be: Y2K compliant and expandable (compatable with new technology).

Long term system --- The ACD/VRS was not purchased to serve as an interim system, it was purchased as a permanent system.

Implementation --- The ACD/VRS was installed in 4 prototype facilities, 2 of them had the Denro, 2 of them had the Litton - they were Miami, Raleigh-Durham, Casper, and Seattle. After the system was up and running well in these facilities, it was them installed in the other facilities.

No more big phones --- When the OASIS is fully implemented, the big black visible phones will go, the system will be incorporated into the voice switching system in the OASIS.

Back lighting planned --- Back lighting for the LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) - A back-lit ACD would only have the space for 2 lines of data on it (The current one has space for 4 lines) The cost is approximately $260/unit $350,000 in all. This back lighting would need its own power source, would be green in color and would only have one intensity.

HELPFUL INFORMATION FROM ACD/VRS WORKSHOP NOVEMBER 1-5, 1999

We are able to have up to 2 lines of programmed information on the LCD (Liquid Crystal Display).

For a call drop out --- Note time from phone LCD, person’s Agent number, hit the bad line key before you disconnect, report to AOS-510 in OKC ASAP.

"Available" but no calls when in Ring Enable Mode - The proper sign on procedures probably were not followed, sign off & try again.

Phone rings but nobody there --- In some researched cases, it was determined that the specialist was involved in a 3-way conversation with the pilot they just finished with and were put on hold by the pilot.

Call on hold gone --- If you put a call on hold, then go back and the caller is gone and more than 5 minutes have elapsed, the call has gone back into the rotation and gone to another briefer.

No credit - If you transfer a pilot into TIBS using "40" it does not get counted.

If you get the "siren" --- Hold the plunger button down on the phone to clear.

Abandoned call --- A call is considered abandoned if the pilot hangs up after at least 10 seconds after the call goes to the briefer and is not answered by the briefer --- this 10 second parameter can be changed, it is set nationally, the parameter on the old systems was 20 seconds. There is a spectrum report that can be obtained from the system that shows the time frame the abandoned calls were lost.

Transferring a pilot into the recordings --- Beware not to use "49" if you do this, the pilot can record over what you have on it.

Monitor your recordings --- There have been instances where greetings and other voice prompts within the system have been changed/deleted by accident, it would pay to set up a regular time to monitor these and make sure they say what they should say.

WORK GROUP SETUP

Hopefully a work group will be set up in the future, their function will be to:

Rework parameters

Address training

Review Action Items --- include input/feedback on solution

Keep in contact with Voice Switch Regional Group and Other Groups

Properly disseminate results of work group meetings/include field

Handle any new issues that come up

Tracking

Work Group Makeup:

1 Regional Representative from ATD

1 Field Management Representative

1 Field Union Representative

1 Regional/NAATS

1 Each From ATP/AOS/ATX

Work group members will come from initial workshop

Other support as needed i.e. BCS, AF

Back to Table of Contents

NOTAM Handbook Rewrite Workgroup

Andrea Chay, CXO AFSS

The NOTAM handbook rewrite workgroup met in Washington, DC Dec 1 and 2 at the Air Transport Association headquarters. Bill Chouinard from ATP-310 assured us that all our computers are Y2K ready. There will be a Dog and Pony show at the Command Center for the media with all the managerial types working to show their faith in the system. It will start with Guam at 5AM on Dec. 31^st and they will monitor, as it becomes midnight local across the world. This should be interesting. All Part 139 airports will have additional staffing and be required to call into the appropriate Regional Communications Center to report everything is OK, so if you are working, and airports call you to tell you they are Y2K OK, tell them to call the region!

There will be two more changes to be published that were not ready for the Feb. 24^th publication that need to be implemented sooner than next year. Look for either a GENOT or a NOTICE on these two items:

Snow depth - 1/4" will be a valid reporting value. This is critical for air carriers, so now if an airport calls in a 1/4" snow depth, take it and do not round up to 1/2".

Obstruction light outages - we will be re-instituting the 15 day cutoff and notifying FCC again when a tower light notam expires, and we had no notification of it being returned to service. We will NOT have any involvement with advising the operator that the notam is cancelled, etc. All we will do is notify FCC, who will then take the responsibility to contact the operator to determine its status, and fine them if necessary. Details as to how to do this are being worked out. We at CXO have a computerized notam program that automates a lot of work, and it is available for any facility's use. It allows you to get rid of the paper logs altogether. Access the program at our website: www.cxoafss.jccbi.gov and check it out. The program will be updated to include this new FCC notification requirement when needed.

We received word that OASIS is now delayed until at least August of 2001 for the in-service decision date. SEA and STL will still get theirs as planned, and then the next installation will be delayed. So, ATP is now looking at the feasibility of sustaining M1FC until 2005 or 2006. We do need to get the notams into ICAO format sooner than that, hopefully within one year. It will need to be a PC based system, perhaps an Oracle database (maybe you computer gurus out there know what that is!) We also need to get all the Notam contractions in all documents unified. ATA mentioned that the Notam contractions and the approach plates also need to match. Gary Bobik took an IOU to work on that.

We got a bomb dropped on us in terms of a memorandum for TFRs for special events, such as irshows, etc. This memorandum has already been signed and distributed to the regions without any prior coordination with the unions, or field facilities. They want to have a TFR for airshows to make it regulatory to avoid the airspace when an airshow or event is occurring, rather than just "avoidance advised". This means an FDC Notam will be issued by the FDC notam office. The question unanswered is whether we will still issue a D notam as we do now. This memo does not preclude us from issuing the D notam. There are two problems with this memorandum.

FDC notams are issued under the Center identifier, not the airport. Pilots will not get this notam if they just look under the airport identifier. Briefers could miss this too, if they don't remember to check under the appropriate Center notams. If we DO keep issuing the D notams, then there will be duplicate notams, which is yet more stuff for us to have to pick through.

Our FDC notam System can only handle 9999 FDC notams per year, and when we go over 10,000, which we will if this is implemented, the system looks for the first number notam that was cancelled and reassigns it that number. These will be hard to track.

We discussed what kind of Notam is needed for LAHSO (land and hold short) operations when some of the equipment is out of service. We agreed we want something very general i.e. LAHSO unavailable, and not getting into the specifics of what piece of equipment is out of service. This is pending. We are still waiting on a response to our request to get rid of the Class II notams and keeping them in the computer until published permanently.

Regarding parachute jumping notams, the question of two NOTAMs if at an airport, one under the airport identifier, one reference a NAVAID RADIAL/DME is still pending. The problem is if you only put an airport parachute jump under the airport identifier, it does not get picked up on a route brief.

Pete from FAI requested a WEF time be added to snow NOTAMs and MU reports. This will let the pilot know when that report was issued, like on a PIREP. Some airports are slow on updating conditions, especially in Alaska. After some heated debate, we all agreed this would be useful information for the user, and hopefully worth the extra work for the specialist. A DCP will be sent out.

A question was brought up regarding obstacles near an airport. For example, a temporary lighted crane 1500 feet northwest of the approach end to a runway is now just a local NOTAM. The air carriers are concerned because of aircraft performance. Gary took an IOU to look into this. We also had a lengthy discussion on the clarity (or lack thereof) of FDC NOTAMs, especially with changes in approach minima. (No solutions were brought forth; we need to contact AVN in Oklahoma City to get something done there.)

To sum up, a new NOTAM handbook will be out Feb. 24, 2000, 7930.2G. A NOTICE or GENOT may be forthcoming regarding snow depth and tower light NOTAMs. OASIS is delayed till 2001, but we will go forward somehow on ICAO format NOTAMs. Any questions or comments e-mail me at [email protected].

Back to Table of Contents

---

Health and Safety Tidbits

Suzanne Pellosmaa, NAATS OSH Rep.

More On Ergonomics

CVS (Computer Vision Syndrome) The American Optometric Association (AOA) defines CVS as a "complex of eye and vision problems which are experienced during and related to computer use." The problems associated with such include:

• eyestrain (sore or fatigued eyes)
• headaches
• slowness in changing focusing distance
• blurred vision after close-up work
• eye irritation (dryness, redness, puffiness)
• contact lens discomfort
• neck, back, or shoulder pain due to poor posture

(Of course some of the problems mentioned about could also be in part from poor indoor air quality, inadequate lighting, and poor ergonomics-such as ill-designed workstations)

Studies within the past few years by AOA and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health speculate nearly 90% of the 70 million US workers who use computers for more than three hours a day now experience some form of eyestrain and do have vision complaints. The studies have shown that in one year alone, nearly 12 million people had symptoms severe enough to contact their eye doctors, at a cumulative cost of more than $2 billion to their health plans. It is safe to assume that as computer usage increases, so will certain health costs which will imply higher insurance premiums. Recent studies also estimate productivity costs will increase as well-even slight visual degradations can cause productivity declines of 4-19 percent.

How Does our Vision get Impaired?

Problem is prolonged viewing of computer screens has proven to be unnatural for the human optical system. Routinely focusing one's attention between a computer screen and a more distant workspace object further aggravates the situation. The result of this repetitive refocusing is essentially the basis for CVS. During computer use, the average person blinks approximately 4-6 times per minute while the natural rate is 22 blinks per minute. The lower blink rate caused eye moisture to evaporate, resulting in a "dry eye" condition (itching, burning, blurring, fatigue, double vision). People with this dry eye condition tend to arch their foreheads in an effort to see more clearly, resulting often times in a severe headache. To compensate, many people subconsciously assume awkward, unnatural positions (postures) while focusing on their computer screens, creating a host of musculoskeletal pains such as sore backs, stiff necks, and knots in the shoulders. Again, an ergonomically incorrect chair could also cause some of these symptoms.

 

Utilizing Good Ergonomics

Here are some helpful ergonomic suggestions that can help reduce the symptoms of CVR. They include:

• keeping computer screens slightly below eye level
• arranging furniture to place 20-26 inches between employees and their screens
• encouraging employees to keep screen contrast and brightness at moderate levels
• keeping computer screens clean
• eliminating screen glare and reflection through appropriate lighting
• requiring employees to take frequent short breaks to rest their eyes
• advising computer users to purposely blink rapidly when they feel their eyes dry or irritated

Last but not least, there are companies out there offering a new alternative; non-prescription protective eyewear that uses lens filtering technology to reduce eyestrain and focus the eyes more efficiently. You may want to check with your local eye doctor to see if this nonprescription eyewear is available in your area.

Fire Sprinkler Recalled

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has ordered the recall of about a million fire sprinklers installed in nursing homes, hospitals, schools, and other buildings nationwide between 1961-1976. The sprinklers were manufactured by the Star Sprinkler Co., now called the Mealane Corporation. The company has agreed to replace the sprinkler heads that malfunction. The recalled sprinklers are dry-type model numbers, D-1, RD-1, RE-1, E-1, and ME-1. "Star" appears on the sprinkler, along with the model number and the manufacture date. For more information, visit www.cpsc.gov/cpspub/prerel/prerel.

Electric Charges zap the Inflight Position

This past month (October) at a facility in the southern region, there were two specialists who were electocuted while being assigned the inflight position, as far as I know they are alright. In Millville, the runway light switch panel (which was located at the inflight position) did start an electrical fire but did not cause any damage to any person or equipment. At most flight service stations there does seem to be a problem with loud static noises in the event of a thunderstorm. What your facility may want to check is to ensure that all equipment involving the inflight position is properly grounded. You may want to check with your Airways Facility personnel to accomplish this task. If anyone has any episodes of such electro-static discharge from any consoles or from any equipment in your facility, please contact Sue Rhodes, ASO NAATS OSHA Rep. Her fax is 727-893-3647 or email her at [email protected]. A prompt reply would be appreciated.

Holiday Checklist

The holidays are upon us once again and here are a few safety and health reminders to make your season merry and joyous:

Entertaining:

• prepare as much ahead of time as practical
• if there is snow or ice, shovel the walk and driveway so that your guests can arrive and depart safely. Outside walks and steps should be well lighted
• if the event is a cocktail party, ask guests to identify a designated driver
• use ounce measures as opposed to free-pouring drinks. Close down the bar an hour before your party is to end
• after the party, double check to see that all candles are extinguished

Decorating:

• choose decorations that are unbreakable, especially around young toddlers. Always use a sturdy ladder, do not climb onto boxes or chairs
• choose a fresh tree and keep away from heat sources, doorways, and walkway patterns
• an artificial tree should be tested and labeled as fire-resistant
• turn off all lights and other decorations when you leave the home or retire for the evening

Additional Tips:

• when enjoying the party schedule, try to eat an apple or hand of pretzels before leaving the house so that you will not fill up on the fat-laden appetizers
• remember to eat in moderation, the white meat of the turkey being less fattening than the dark meat. Walnuts and peanuts are loaded with fat as well as your cheese dips
• drink in moderation, try to substitute one non-alcoholic drink for every alcoholic drink, utilize seltzers
• when on a road trip remember these items --- an ice scraper, jumper cables, rock salt, kitty litter, extra window washer fluid, heavy wool blanket, compact shovel, and a flashlight with spare batteries.

Please remember to take care during the holidays, and enjoy the Millennium celebration!!!

Back to Table of Contents

---

Laser Vision Correction

Kate Breen, NAATS/ATX LIAISON

If you have been inundated like we have been in the Washington, DC area for advertisements regarding laser vision correction you may have a few questions that I can answer in this article or at least point you in a direction to find out more information. Let me start by saying I am far from being an expert on the subject, I have just done a little legwork and made a few phone calls.

LASIK is an acronym for laser in-situ keratomileusis, which simply means,"to shape the cornea within using a laser." It corrects vision by reshaping the cornea so that light rays focus more precisely on the retina, thereby reducing or eliminating refractive errors. Researchers found that IBM’s new Excimer laser, used initially for etching computer chips, had medical applications as well. Now in its second decade of use, the technologically advanced Excimer laser has added a tremendous amount of precision, control, and safety to treating nearsightedness, farsightedness and astigmatism.

Who are the best candidates for the procedure? Well here are the technical terms, nearsighted -1.0 Diopters to 12.0 Diopters, astigmatism up to 4.0 Diopters, and hyperopia +1.0 Diopters to +6.0 Diopters. One of the other things that aid in the success of the procedure is if your prescription has virtually stayed the same over the past couple of years. The complete exam you receive from the Doctor will be the only real indication whether or not you’re a good candidate. Oh ya one last thing you have to be over the age of 18, I think our bargaining unit members meet that requirement hands down!

The short version of the procedure is basically your eye is numbed with an eye drop, and an eyelid speculum is positioned to hold your eyelids open. Then a small suction ring will be placed around the cornea and serves as a platform for an instrument known as a microkeratome. The microkeratome separates the surface layers of the cornea, creating a protective flap that is folded back. You will be asked to look at a target light while the Excimer laser reshapes the corneal tissue. A clicking sound can be heard as each microscopic layer of tissue is vaporized. This process will last from seconds to minutes, depending on the amount of correction necessary. The corneal flap is placed back into its original position and allowed to dry for a few minutes. The whole procedure from start to finish takes about 15-30 minutes. From the few people I have talked to who have had the procedure, it seems to be virtually painless, you may suffer a little discomfort right after the procedure but that seems to be the extent of it.

Some of the questions I asked were how safe is the procedure and what are the results you’ve reported so far. In US Clinical trials, 98% @ 20/40 or better (good enough to pass a driver’s test in most states), 80% @20/20. There were no sight threatening complications, however there are possible risks. One of the best websites I have found describing the risks involved is www.youreyesite.com; the Doctor breaks it down into two categories operative risks and postoperative risks. It really depends on how bad your vision is, the worse your vision is the greater the chance for an enhancement procedure down the road. As with anything involving your health, ask the Doctor to explain all risks before making a decision.

You should select your Ophthalmologist carefully; the Doctor I’ve selected is Rajesh K. Rajpal, M.D. He was the first surgeon in the Washington area to perform LASIK surgery and served as a principal investigator in the clinical trials for FDA approval. He has trained over 2,000 Ophthalmologists around the country in Excimer laser surgery and has also treated thousands of patients for nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. I won’t list all his credentials, but you get the picture. If you would like to contact the Doctor’s Staff at the Washington Laser Eye Center, you can call 877-234-2020(toll free) or visit the website: www.washingtonlasereye.com; they assured me they would be glad to answer any questions you might have, even if you were calling from outside the Washington area.

The recovery period is relatively short; most patients have functional vision in one to three days. Full visual results are usually realized within one to four weeks.

I have also checked with the Office of Aviation Medicine here in headquarters on restrictions for Air Traffic Controllers in regards to LASIK surgery. The national policy is the ATCS undergoing the surgery (provided there are no complications) will be allowed to return to the floor 7 days after the surgery with a letter from the Doctor stating the best visual acuity. When I asked the headquarters Doctor here if ATCS had to notify their regional flight surgeon prior to the surgery, the response was "there is no requirement to do so, however it would be advisable", so use your judgement!

Now the bad news of all this is the price!!! I doubt your health insurance will cover the cost of the surgery due to it being elective, but check before you commit if money is a factor. The cost runs from $3,000-$5,000 for both eyes and should include initial eye exam, all follow-up examinations for the following 12 months, the procedure itself, and enhancements based on regular follow-up and medical necessity. You can also go to Canada to get the procedure done, which runs about $1,000 for both eyes up there, however you need to then line up a doctor in your area for post operative care which can run you about $800, plus your travel costs. The web site for a Canadian group that does the surgery is www.LASIK-VISION.com.

There are other types of vision corrective surgery, but this article deals strictly with LASIK surgery, I did not go into every different option, because LASIK seems to be the latest and safest option out there. I hope this was informative and if I can answer any questions about the research or data in this article please feel free to call me 202-267-8028. I will be going for my initial consultation on December 16^th, and I’ll be honest with you I’m a little nervous -- Okay, okay, so a lot nervous! The people I’ve talked to that have had the procedure did reassure me that if they had it to do over again, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Good Luck!

Back to Table of Contents

---

Briefly

Courtesy of www.fedweek.com

Holiday Policy Reminder

Because both Christmas Day and New Year's Day fall on Saturdays this year, the "in lieu of" days for them will be Friday, December 24 and Friday, December 31 for the large majority of federal employees who work a Monday-Friday schedule. Despite the rumors, the government says it has no plans to give extra time off around the holidays (because of possible troubles related to the year 2000 computer problem).

One Vet Hiring Authority Expiring

One of the government's veterans hiring authorities is expiring December 31, leading to potential confusion about the status of other veteran's preference practices. Expiring is a provision of the Veterans Readjustment Act giving agencies power to non-competitively appoint post-Vietnam era veterans who were last released from active duty more than 10 years ago. For purposes of the law, the Vietnam era ended May 7, 1975. There is no active proposal in Congress to reinstate this authority. The change does not affect general veterans preference rights in hiring and retention -- only the provisions of that particular hiring authority.

Social Security Relief Remains Up in Air

Proposals to weaken or repeal two unpopular Social Security offsets affecting federal retirees and their spouses, the windfall elimination provision, and the government pension offset are drawing record numbers of sponsors in Congress. That has organizations that have worked on those issues for years, notably the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, guardedly optimistic that something at last will be done. However, the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee holds the keys. If they can be convinced that the cost of reform is acceptable possibly by including it in a larger Social Security bill action might at last come next year.

Social Security Age to Increase for Some

An increase in the age for eligibility for full Social Security retirement benefits, enacted more than a decade ago, will start to show its effects in January. Persons born in 1938 will not be eligible for full benefits until they reach age 65 and 2 months, up from the currently required age 65. The effect next year will be felt by those born in that year who elect to begin drawing reduced benefits, which is allowed at age 62. Benefits still will be available upon reaching age 62 but the reduction will be greater because it's tied to the formula for determining full benefits. The age of eligibility for full benefits and the reduction for those taking benefits at age 62 will rise on a phased-in basis until it reaches age 67 for those born in 1960 and later. The change primarily affects those under the FERS retirement system but many CSRS system employees have enough Social Security-covered work to qualify for at least reduced benefits, as well. 

Back to Table of Contents

Walter W. Pike, President

This page was last updated on 30 November, 2000