National Association of Air Traffic Specialists

NAATS SLAMS ARCHITECTURE WORK GROUP REPORT; "MINORITY VIEWS" SUBMITTED TO FAA

Washington, D.C. In a comprehensive response, to a series of ill-considered recommendations from the FAA's Flight Service Architecture Work Group, NAATS has issued an unprecedented Minority Report stating our own views on the future of Flight Service. Critical excerpts from the report appear here. The response was prepared by NAATS Work Group Members Ron Dawson and Craig Campbell, with the assistance of CEO Wally Pike and Executive Director Gary Simms.

We believe that the conclusions of the Flight Service Architecture Work Group lack sufficient forethought, planning and operational analysis of the impact to aviation that the group's proposed changes would create. In particular, we strongly oppose the work group recommendation to consolidate the existing system of 61 Automated Flight Service Stations to between 25 and 35 facilities.

We oppose most of the conclusions and recommendations of the FSS Future Architecture Workgroup. The group was tasked with assessing identified objectives of its predecessor, the Flight Service Architecture Workgroup, and planning for the provisioning of flight services in the future.

This minority opinion report describes our analysis of the work group product from an operational perspective - a perspective that appears to be seriously lacking in the work group's report. We found in the document little meaningful assessment of cost benefit other than equipment and facility housing concerns, and no analysis of safety impact.

The recommendation to consolidate the current system of 61 AFSS's to 25 to 35 Flight Service facilities would not adequately or safely satisfy customer demand. To expand and realign Inflight service areas with Enroute Center boundaries would debase Flight Service personnel's expert knowledge of weather patterns, terrain influences, and their unique body of knowledge about the flight plan area. The work group's strategy for matching resources to service demand largely ignores the imminent short term and the long range impact workforce attrition will have on aviation access to flight services. Their estimate for hiring needed replacement AFSS controllers lacks the proper timing to avert personnel insufficiencies.

We believe the FAA should not approve the recommendations of the FSS Future Architecture Workgroup. Considering any of the various facility reduction alternatives would be premature until the FAA and NAATS agree on methods to accurately measure both customer demand and Flight Service personnel productivity and capabilities, with safety - not budget - as the overriding concern.

INTRODUCTION

The National Association of Air Traffic Specialists offers this statement in opposition to the conclusions and recommendations set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration's FSS Future Architecture Workgroup. Union participation on the work group was limited. Also, there was no concurrent interface with system users or meaningful analysis of their needs. It is our opinion that even then, the user groups demand for needed service expansion and enhancements were largely ignored.

For example, the premise from which the entire consolidation plan stems is that pilots will become more "self-reliant." In contrast to this premise, feedback from pilots through the AFSS workforce leads us to the overwhelming conclusion that our customers have high regard for "one-on-one briefings", believes them superior to any other information source, and that they would be greatly distressed if we were not readily accessible.

We believe the current group's methodology to be so flawed as to render their conclusion of drastic change invalid. It is our recommendation that the Agency not approve this plan.

NAATS ANALYSIS OF WORK GROUP EFFORT

It should be noted that the work group objectives assume that a reduction in the number of facilities is appropriate. While the work group is not to be criticized for its focus, it must be noted that the work group's charge was extremely limited. There was no room for analysis of appropriate increases in the number of facilities or services provided to the public.

It is also important to note our agreement with a key part of the "vision" of the report: system user demand for quality aviation weather products will increase into the next century. We do not concur with the "vision" that a reduced number of AFSSs will continue to provide the service; if demand is increasing, the FAA should be enhancing Flight Service capacities, not reducing them.

Second, the "vision" assumes that the user community will become more "self reliant" and that direct involvement of Flight Service personnel will diminish. We have seen no facts which support this vision.

We do however support the concept of enhancing the functionalities of Flight Service personnel, and we are pleased that the report acknowledges a key role for Flight Service personnel in providing aeronautical and weather information. Actually, we applaud the work group's general theme of flight service specialists being the nation's aviation weather experts.

Lastly, there is a striking contradiction. The work group first speaks of reduced numbers of AFSS locations, and then follows with its goal of Flight Service assuming additional functions: Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) and traffic management activities. Given the group's stated desire to allow workforce attrition to continue, they should be questioned on how these new assignments could be accomplished with sharply reduced personnel.

Optimum Number of Facilities

Essentially, the work group was directed to come up with ways and means to reduce the number of Flight Service facilities. Several of their assumptions and conclusions should be addressed here.

Service Demand

According to the work group report, the number of flight services has declined. The report's assumption appears to be that this reduction is due to enhanced "self reliance" by the customer, through DUATS or via other means. We respectfully disagree. In fact, the number of flight service personnel who actually answer 1-800-WXBRlEF lines has declined through attrition and through the consolidation process. The real truth is: access to Flight Service has declined. If access had not been limited, the number of services would not have diminished. Also, while it is true that many pilots who own or have access to personal computers use the DUAT services, it is likewise true that the majority seem to follow up with contacts to an AFSS.

The group also appears to be making assumptions about future general aviation activity that may not be realized. The likelihood of a resurgence in aviation activity should not be ignored in future planning.

Workforce Erosion

The report assumes that there will be no new hires into the Flight Service workforce through 2005. Other FAA task forces and work groups assume that replacement employees will begin training in FY 1999. If the workforce will continue to shrink through attrition, the appropriate question to be asked is not how we can reduce facilities, but rather whether the reduced workforce is sufficient to meet the anticipated need. We have an inordinately large percentage of employees in the workforce that will soon retire. It is very likely that, given the increased workload and responsibilities suggested by the workgroup recommendations, those eligibles currently in place when dramatic changes occur may en mass decide to retire, rather than assume the additional stress associated with job retraining and workplace transitions. Accordingly, now is the time for the FAA to start the hiring process for a pipeline of AFSS controllers to replace the aging workforce.

Traffic Count

Besides not proving the theory about declines in service demand, the work group cannot dispute one historical perspective: Before the FSS consolidations of the late 1980s, traffic count was higher overall because there were more facilities and specialists to receive requests from pilots (and log contacts and briefings.) Today, a route previously covered by as many as 5 FSS's may be covered by only one AFSS. If the pilot were today to make the same radio calls (now to only one Inflight specialist working the entire airspace), only one briefing could be logged, according to FAA directive.

The flaw in employing current traffic count methods for arriving at staffing needs is that it does not include a massive amount of work performed by AFSS controllers. Some of the many services performed but not included in today's traffic count are: civil and military flight data movement, administrative messages, aircraft accident notifications, hazardous weather and overdue aircraft broadcasts, recorded briefings for mass dissemination, processing and validation of NOTAMs, emergency lost aircraft orientations, search and rescue activities, maintenance of graphical weather displays, official weather observations, and US Customs aircraft handling and notifications.

Staffing

The work group used the existing traffic count and technology for determining the current and projected staffing requirements. There is no question - either with NAATS or with the FAA - that the current staffing standard is inadequate, inappropriate, and not much more than a haphazard estimate.

Further, the work group seems content to maintain, if not increase the current ratio of overhead to operational positions when consolidating facilities. Many facilities are already critically staffed (in operations). In recent years, some facility permanent supervisory and staff positions were eliminated. To compensate, facilities then filled the offices with temporary staff positions. But the effects of attrition have now made this luxury one we can no longer afford. To continue this practice is neither responsible nor consistent with the FAA safety mission.

The work group report notes that staff positions being filled by detail of FPL's do not count as overhead, and that they remain pad of the FPL count. Were this representative of a handful of individuals, we would not point it out. Therefore, the number of services per specialist is substantially understated, regardless of whether the "count" properly measures actual Flight Service work levels, which it does not.

When the basis (the number of specialists producing flight services) is unknown, the fact that a series of mathematical steps are undertaken does not make the result more valid. Simply stated, "garbage in, garbage out.".

Facilities

The optimum number of facilities was analyzed from a equipment and space available perspective by surveying facilities' current equipment and building capacities. The work group's analysis of the number of facilities needed to support specialists is based on the ability of a specialist to perform an arbitrarily predetermined number of flight services, and then by idealizing this number by placing 65 specialists in each of 31 facilities that are 10,000 square feet in size or larger. In fact, larger facilities offer very little increase in operational functionality; they do however offer increased administrative space for increased staff and management.

Consolidation

The work group states its conclusion precisely: "As a result of the declining demand for one-on-one Flight Services which is matched by a steadily declining workforce, there is no need to maintain 61 facilities." This conclusion is doubly inaccurate: it assumes (without proof) that demand will diminish, and it assumes (also without proof) that a smaller workforce is appropriate. As a result, the basic assumption that it is appropriate to reduce personnel and facilities becomes a self fulfilling one; the reasoning is circular and invalid.

Possibly the most disconcerting conclusion used to determine an "optimum" number of facilities is the workgroup's "consensus" that 20,000 flight services per specialist is attainable only with a significant loss of quality, but that a number 10% less (18,000 flight services per specialist) may be palatable. Also, the fear of litigation, rather than the interest of public safety was given as the factor precluding use of the 20,000 figure as a goal. To set the record straight: there was no consensus - the Union was not present during these discussions and would never agree to any initiative that would compromise safety by reducing the quality of the product we deliver. More importantly though, is the work group's willingness to impact safety by targeting 18,000 flight services/specialist to maximize the consolidation outcome.

Cost Benefit Assessment

Throughout the report, costs only are measured. Since these costs are based on untested personnel assumptions, the analysis is another example of garbage in/garbage out Expressing some of the estimated "savings" in figures of six particular digits is a specific example of mathematical hubris.

Realigning Inflight Service Areas With ARTCC Boundaries

From a lay perspective, this may seem plausible. And why not, one might argue: Enroute Flight Advisory Service (EFAS) areas are already aligned with ARTCC boundaries. The hypothesis may be well-intended, but is unworkable.

Operational Impact

The implied assumption here is that the newly expanded service area of the receiving facility would require little or no additional staffing. This assumption is incorrect: ARTCC geographical areas of responsibility are much larger than those of an AFSS. EFAS operations can safely be conducted in areas the size of an ARTCC because EFAS personnel deal only with the weather aspect of the area. With the Inflight position however, the rules dramatically change. Not only must Inflight personnel be responsible (in a smaller area) for weather concerns, but for every other aspect of flight too. Area knowledge and responsibilities are the same as for preflight duties. Along with weather, this includes continuous maintenance of familiarity with airport status and many other dynamic aeronautical concerns. In an ARTCC, the airspace is divided into specialties, and sectors within those specialties. The expansion of an AFSS area would likewise require specialties or sectors.

Obviously, functional consolidation would necessitate staffing increases to compensate both for specialized knowledge limitations and for facility traffic increases.

Equipment

The temptation to decommission Inflight frequencies as a means to facilitate functional realignment, if acted upon, would result in nothing less than a curtailment of service to airborne aircraft. Ironically, this is suggested by the same group that is attempting to shift the primary AFSS role from Preflight to Inflight services, in which case adequate frequency coverage would be even more important.

The idea that replacement of ICSS and the OASIS system will enable service realignment and consolidation is operationally flawed. Any new ICSS system with more frequency capacity may facilitate equipment relocation, but OASIS will do little to help.

We fully support the proposition that all flight service personnel should have access to not only graphical displays of weather locations, but also aircraft positions. This combination would greatly enhance both safety and efficiency. We disagree that this needs to be located within the ARTCC.

Flight Watch

The work group concludes that with Inflight relocation comes the ability to relocate Flight Watch. We fail to see the connection. These are two separate and distinct services that require different operating methods and training. As there presently is only one AFSS facility per ARTCC area containing EFAS, what advantage could there be to relocating them?

Matching Resources to Service Demand

The Work Group suggests Traffic Cascading. Traffic cascading is not a new idea. It currently is being done through various agreements between NAATS and the FAA throughout the country. Overall, we question its effectiveness from a safety and efficiency standpoint. The concept of "facility partnerships", while a novel idea, would not work well. Cross training of personnel for seasonal work defies the FAA's own currency and proficiency standards. The work group is attempting here to draw a conclusion about seasonal trends that cannot be substantiated. The argument of seasonal traffic swings is based on generalizations at best, and likely drawn from workgroup member opinion, and not from meaningful analysis.

Part Time Operations

The group's basis assumption of service availability with part time facility operations being "equal to the service available today" sounds curiously similar to the failed promise to pilots of "equal or better service" during the earlier FSS consolidation. Given the credibility gap with general aviation that still lingers from this past blunder, the "equal to" assumption is somewhat hollow and will be hard to sell (much less attain.)

Preflight Services

We are pleased to agree that in the short term, any significant off loading of preflight activities would require additional equipment and operational quarters. We add that it would also require additional personnel in many instances. Beyond the short term, the work group justifies feasibility only in terms of equipment and available positions. The report fails to consider additional personnel required to service off-loaded calls. And, while it is true that some facilities routinely route calls to adjacent facilities, it is tolerated only because demand has overcome the ability to provide service.

Inflight Services

These conclusions contain some refreshingly appropriate acknowledgment that Flight Service plays a key role in that segment of GA activity which is other than pleasure flights: critical mail, banking, cargo, and connecting flights to UPS and Federal Express, as well as military, air cargo and air taxi users when many towers and approach controls are closed.

As stated earlier, we are seriously opposed to reducing the number of available frequencies until such time as it can be demonstrated that frequencies can be reduced without any negative impact on safety considerations.

Staffing

In the discussion of part timing facilities, the work group's report reiterates a fact of which we are all aware: that some facilities are more difficult to staff than others. The suggestion that new hires be directed towards these facilities is dismissed out of hand. We believe such a suggestion should be explored more thoroughly.

We are curious to know what criteria the work group used in labeling a facility "hard to staff'. How did the group determine the presumed causes? The reason a facility remains difficult to staff is the lack of a pipeline of new people. Hiring would solve the problems associated with both attrition and difficult to staff facilities. Actually, the combined effects of no pipeline and attrition will eventually create staffing problems in even the most desirable locations.

Cost Benefit Assessment

There is no assessment in the report of the harm to the aviation community when services are lost by transferring calls to other facilities. Without corresponding staffing increases in facilities receiving the traffic, calls will go unanswered.

Many pilots will give up trying to obtain a briefing. Many will depart without one. And sadly, some of these will not reach their destinations. This intangible must be included in any assessment of cost benefit.

Flight Services Network and Common Database

We feel it likely that any future need for this type of data base could be met by inclusion and access through the OASIS platform.

Work Group Conclusions and Alternatives

We agree with the workgroup's conclusion that M1FC and ICSS would not support consolidation. But we disagree with the workgroup's theory that either OASIS or a new ICSS system somehow makes consolidation and functional realignment practical. Neither of these two proposed systems address human operational limitations.

The report states that part-timing is the answer to problems associated with facilities that operate at or above funded staffing levels. It is this type of argument that highlights the point we have been trying to make: safety is no longer paramount, budget is. Because there is no pipeline of replacement employees, attrition creates an automatic adjustment of on-board employees. The effect is that on-board staffing becomes authorized, and what authorized is what is funded. Left untreated, this symptom will soon reach alarming levels in many locations.

Work Group Recommended Alternative

From a safety of operations standpoint, the recommended evolution to 25 to 35 Inflight facilities and 10 to 15 Preflight facilities is illogical. A glaring fact not addressed in the report is the safety degradations associated with expanding geographical responsibilities.

The best alternative at this time is to maintain facility status quo, pending further analysis of all pertinent influencing factors. This would require the immediate hiring of personnel so as to not further degrade the system. All other alternatives progressively deteriorate both the quality and the quantity of flight services to our customers. The flying public suffered enough service degradation with the last FSS consolidation. Since then, AFSS controllers have lost some of their expert perspective on these weather nuances. The digression in expertise can be minimized, but not with further consolidations.

MINORITY CONCLUSION

We have addressed in this report our concerns with the product of the FSS Future Architecture Workgroup. In any study of this magnitude, there is a plethora of issues that neither can justly be addressed in brevity, nor lend themselves well to written form. We are on record as being in favor of participating in meaningful and objective discussions aimed toward streamlining FAA services to obtain increases in efficiency. We are truly disappointed that the importance of our role in providing employee input to this workgroup was apparently lightly viewed by agency leadership. As the conclusions and recommendations of the group became apparent, our suspicions that the FSS Architecture effort existed solely as a means to justify an already identified end were confirmed. It is now very evident the conclusions were precognitive, apparently orchestrated by some ill-informed and misguided faction within FAA Headquarters. The veiled purpose of the Flight Service Architecture effort is to lend credibility to the systematic self-extinction of the Flight Service Option, without regard for the safety of the general aviation user within the national airspace system. It is not yet too late to avert a potential irreversibly damaged relationship between the Agency and the public it serves. FAA management must realize that Flight Service controllers have always been its ambassadors to the flying taxpayer. We have existed and nurtured aviation since the dawn of scheduled flight. For pilots of today, we bring a calm, personal humanity into an otherwise cold and authoritarian air traffic system. We are the protectors of that delicate thread connecting a highly visible agency with an increasingly wrathful public.

Back to Table of Contents

Message from President Mac

by Michael F. (Mac) McAnaw,
NAATS President

I had a couple of meetings in February - NLMPC, DOT Partnership Council, and March is full already: Board meeting first week, my vacation, then training at CMD for Interest Based Bargaining. While I am on vacation contact Wally Pike at NAATS HQ, he will be able to help you. Here are the things I need to address this month, CPP, STL, and Partnership.

To the people at STL AFSS temporary site, Mike Terry forwarded your letter to me about the lack of action by the FAA/NAATS to get your facility rebuilt. First of all NAATS went to Capitol Hill a number of times about STL AFSS in the past. Irv Woods and I thought your building was a done deal, to be perfectly honest the last report we got was that the FAA was getting bids for construction. That was about 16 months ago. So we thought everything was on schedule and I went about my business. Since your letter I have asked Irv and Jeb to go back to Capitol Hill to get Congress to apply some pressure on the FAA to get your building built. Wally and I asked Ron Morgan (AAT-1) what the delay was and he didn't know, so Ron promised to get a letter from ATO. As soon as I get it, I will forward it to Mike Terry so he can deliver it to STL. Please don't wait 15 months to tell me you are still having problems. This goes for everyone out there, if there is a problem let's stay after it, if we don't we all look foolish. I can't fix a problem if I don't know we have one.

CPP, the selections for 1996 have been completed, there will be others through the year as we get tower and center specialists who transfer to the FSS option. There is some confusion about a CPP program:

(1) If you have been identified for a move, let's say BNA-OAK, this is not an invitation to go shopping for where you want to go. You gave me your choices and I based the selection on what you sent me. If you want to change your choice write (eMail, letter, fax) and tell me but I can't change the destination after the fact, because you have changed your mind. There are other people I could have used those moves on.

(2) A person filed a ULP against NAATS for not selecting them, I made my last selection November 28th, and I get the letter that they want to participate in the CPP program December 10th, I just can't do it. I have 56 people who are on the CPP list ahead of them. I tell everyone to be patient, there are no guarantees, I will do what I can when the opportunity arises.

(3) The FAA has taken the stand that the CPP MOU, MPP portion doesn't apply to the FSS's in Alaska, because they are not closing. This is incorrect, NAATS has moved a couple people from Alaska FSS's over the years, and a National grievance is in the works. To the persons at HOM and TKA, I haven't forgotten you we will win!

Partnership, I am on three Partnership councils. NFPC is the NAATS FAA Partnership Council, consisting of four NAATS Regional Directors and a four-member management team, Dave Sprague and I are the gatekeepers. The NLMPC is the National Labor Management Partnership Council and is made up of Union Presidents and FAA Service Directors (Belger, Donahue, etc...). The DOT Partnership Council is made up of Union Presidents, and the heads of DOT Departments. You will be seeing a charter for the NLMPC soon, so now you know where that is from. This charter shows the commitment of not only the Unions but also the FAA toward improving your working environment.

IOU's, I still haven't received Monty Belger's comments for your questions in SFO. I promised to list all of these comments from the field on the future of Flight Service and NAATS, well here it is "You and the Board are going in the right direction, keep up the good work." That's right, only one person took the time to send me anything. My new eMail address is [email protected].

Back to Table of Contents

From the Executive Director

by Gary D. Simms

Communications: NAATS and You

We have continued attempting to increase our communication activities with the membership, and in fact we are starting to receive some very positive feedback. Our traditional means of communications, NAATS NEWS, is still the "official record" of most activities. Wearing my publisher's hat, I want to express my thanks to all of those who have offered their congratulations and thanks for enhancements to our flagship publication, which we believe now provides more detailed information and news than ever before.

Second, our new website (at http:// www.naats.org) is getting more and more "hits" from the surfers out there. We put the NAATS NEWS on line, together with our most recent press releases, testimony, public statements, and in depth material which can be longer - and more timely - than what appears in the monthly newsletter. If you haven't visited there, please do so - and use the hot links to find out what else is going on in the aviation world.

Third, our mass-faxing of material to facilities has been used from time to time in order to keep facreps (and NAATS members) apprised of certain developments, But because this is limited to strictly representational issues, and because it is quite public, it is not an effective method for transferring more confidential material to facilities or members.

For that, we are relying more and more on our eMail distribution. While the majority of facilities have NAATS members who are on the eMail list, a surprisingly high number are not yet "with it." If you are not a regular recipient of NAATS eMail, please send us an eMail with your name, facility, screen name (if applicable) and eMail address.

Sign on soon!

Back to Table of Contents

PROCOM REPORT

By Ron Maisel,
PROCOM Chair

The NAATS/FAA Professional Committee Meeting took place in Washington D.C. on January 22-24. The following is a summary of meeting highlights.

FLIGHT SERVICE ISSUES WORK GROUP

Carol Gaunt (ATO-120) provided the group with a briefing on the Flight Service Issues Work Group and related issues. Briefings have been given to Ron Morgan based on the Architecture Work Group draft (to which NAATS provided a minority opinion report). Changes to the draft are expected. The briefing has also been provided to Darlene Freeman, and will be going to the Acting Administrator on February 3. Ms. Gaunt stated that nothing is set in concrete at this point; this will be an evolving project. She anticipates that there will be a follow on work group to continue development of the ideas contained in the current work group report.

On one hand, it was acknowledged that Flight Service will be the aviation weather experts for the FAA. On the other hand, it was noted that the way in which Flight Service operates and provides its functionalities to the pilot community may change. There is an assumption of increased pilot "self reliance" on the part of the FAA.

The briefing divided the time line into near-term (prior to OASIS), mid-term (OASIS deployment and ICSS replacement), and far-term (OASIS replacement; probably about 15 years). The assessment process for the optimum number of facilities is based on an assumption that 16,000 activities per specialists is appropriate. However, there has been no study to support the 16,000 figure, and it was based on anecdotal views of regional management work group participants. The NAATS representatives underscored this serious deficiency in the work group report.

The work group majority report also believes that it is advantageous to align AFSS in-flight operational boundaries with the ARTCC boundaries. Under this idea, the AFSS would not have to be colocated with the centers. It was noted, however, that this would require sectorizing the AFSS system; it was also noted that the number of centers may be reduced in the future. Again, the NAATS minority views disagreed strongly.

There seems to be some interest in allowing retired former Flight Service employees to work part time in summers in order to meet seasonal demand and summer leave requirements. NAATS participants expressed skepticism about the success of such a venture. The FAA is also looking at reduced hours of operations for certain facilities. (This was a project of an independent subcommittee of the work group in which NAATS was not a participant.) However, in-flight communications requirements are a constraining factor. Certainly, however, this could not be accomplished until after an ICSS replacement.

The Kiosk idea was essentially rejected by the work group; the Flight Service Network proposal is not subject to an immediate analysis until after OASIS is developed. At present, there is no real access to the Internet for Flight Service.

The essential recommendations of the work group was to establish 25 to 35 AFSS's with In-flight capability for the late mid-term; realign in-flight service areas to ARTCC boundaries; reduce operational hours at selected facilities, and set up an Executive Steering Committee chaired by ATO-1 to oversee implementation with "transparent" regional boundaries. (See the front page NAATS NEWS story on our Minority Report.)

OASIS

The briefing update on OASIS was provided by Bill Smith, ATR-320. 61 operational systems are still being planned. We are now down to two vendors: EDS and Harris Corporation. The FAA is proceeding to the SIR #2. The method being most seriously considered at this time is to lease the OASIS system: essentially, the FAA will become operators of the system under a 10 year contract (through 2005 or 2006). All software bugs would also be corrected by the vendor. The Operational Capability Tests (OCT) will take place in May/June, 1997 for each contractor. The current projected date of final contract award is August 12, 1997. That is to be followed by the OT&E (probably in Seattle) for 120 days by (by ARA); then, a new testing and evaluation team (ATQ, under ATS) will be performing an independent testing and evaluation protocol. The first hardware delivery (for SEA AFSS) is scheduled for February 1998, followed by site installation activity. The facility testing begins in the April/May 1998 time frame; if successful, a decision to commission would be made (approximately June, 1998). Installation would begin in each region in last quarter of 1998, with at least one per region by September 30, 1999.

The work stations will be replaced as part of the OASIS installation, with two 17" monitors (up from 14" at present), one for alphanumeric and one for weather graphics. They would be linked together, providing for a single entry of data. There has not, however, been specific plans for the mechanics of site installation - particularly how to deal with retention of the ICSS system during the conversion.

These will be part of the vendor's specific proposal.

RESTRUCTURING PLAN

Baxter Sowell (ATO-300) gave the briefing, stating that an effort to begin discussions again about restructuring the supervisory and support staff is commencing. The number of such employees in Flight Service would drop by about 28, net, nationwide.

This effort has no impact on Flight Service Controller staffing numbers. The previous "phase III" of reorganization has been abandoned. The current proposal is based on flight service activities (using 16,000 per specialist). The smallest facilities (up to 27 ATCS's) would have a single manager, an administrative assistant, a staff specialist, and three (3) supervisors.

The second level (up to 48 ATCS's) has a manager, an administrative assistant, one midlevel manager ("operational"), two (2) staff specialists, and 4-6 supervisors (based on a 7:1 ratio of operational supervisors to controllers). Hub facilities could have a deputy manager and an additional administrative assistant).

The third level (more than 49 ATCS's), would have an air traffic manager, a deputy, 2 administrative assistants, 3 staff specialists, one midlevel manager, and operational supervisors based on the 7:1 ratio. There has been some thought that if the number of specialists exceeds 70 at a facility, the ratio could increase so that there would not be a need for than 7 operational supervisors.

Sowell acknowledged that the current basis for measuring activity is insufficient. There are two efforts to improve this system: the Staffing Standards Work Group, and the way in which flight activities are measured.

By February 1, a plan for achieving the standard is to be finalized. By June 15, this structure is to be in place at each facility. Extra people are to be attritted or moved (without negative impact on those people). Regular reports are to be filed with Sowell on compliance. Special requirements for Alaska will probably be required to take the rotation requirements into account. Waivers would be approved only by AT-1.

DUATS

Pete Quinn (ATO-120) provided the briefing to the committee. As part of an IOU from the previous meeting, Quinn provided a copy of the current contract provision which he stated showed that the vendors are not providing full weather briefings, and therefore the FAA does not consider this to be a case of contracting out of bargaining unit work.

The current DUATS contract is for one year with a series of four (4) option years, so that it can be phased out with the installation of OASIS. At present GTE is the only fully functional contractor. GTE is reporting very few closure of flight plans. Statistics show that added graphics seems to encourage DUATS use. The number of DUATS contacts seems to be accelerating very quickly. GTE also reports that the communication costs have been reduced through use of their website.

Funding through the next several years (through '98 and '99) will probably remain at the $9 million level. Since the FTS-2000 system has been used under the new contract, telephone costs have been reduced from over $1.20 per call to less than $.69. GSA is responsible for monitoring the number of calls. Quinn stated that he would take an IOU to respond to an inquiry regarding how the FAA audits the number of calls made into DUATS.

HVAC/LIGHTING

Quinn provided a copy of the signed letter approving the new lighting plan for the AFSS facilities. The new standards are based on the requirements of the Illuminating Engineering Society guidelines and the prototype tested at MIA. Quinn added that the introduction of OASIS could alter these requirements, and that there is no funding available at present to change current facility lighting. Costs could run from $18,000 to $33,000 per facility.

There has been no change in the status of HVAC updates since the last meeting. It is likely that this will receive regional priority over lighting changes.

GPS/800 LINE REDUCTION

Quinn stated that there are no new initiatives, other than FTW and SUA, on use of GPS for Flight Service. Quinn stated that the FTW is preparing an operational test to run for 90 days. He expects it to be approved at FAA headquarters on a test basis.

On the line reduction, Quinn provided a list of line reductions now planned for each facility, including costs. None have been physically removed to date; in terms of deactivation, none have been deactivated as of yet. The decision to deactivate rests with the region and the facility, since the regions will have to pay for the lines in excess of the requirements established at the new, lower levels. According to FAA statistics, the annual savings through deactivation would be $298,746.96. The money would be used to initiate a 1-800 NOTAM system and a 1-800 clearance line for flight service.

NOTAMS

Lyle Miller (ATO-120) gave the update on NOTAMS. He indicated that he has a website for NOTAMS information and reports (www.faa/gov/ ops/htm), and the site is also used for a variety of FAA form templates, as well as publication dates of handbooks. He noted that Change 1 to the Handbook is going into effect next week, and that future changes will take place twice yearly. A major change will be directed at wind and runway friction. Other changes are editorial and grammatical. There will also be some changes in NOTAMS on temporary flight restrictions.

ACADEMY AND TRAINING

A report on FAA Academy activities was presented by Mike Coffelt, ATX-110. Staffing at the Academy will be reduced from a net 16 to 13 during this year. Mike himself will be relocating to OKC in July. A total of 5 EFAS classes (#50201) are scheduled, to provide for 80 students. A total of 24 students will be trained for a terminal to flight service qualification, and 24 students may be offered M1FC Automation Specialist Training (#53023), although the second class (of 12) is likely to be canceled. There is some discussion about converting EFAS training to a facility based curriculum, although the Academy is opposed to this concept. They are investigating ways to increase the number of employees who receive EFAS training.

Coffelt also reported on a proposed restructuring of Flight Service Initial Training. The proposal is based on assumptions that there will be fewer telephone briefings and few (or no) additional new hires. They are suggesting a move to Computer Based Instruction (CBI) in the field. The 30 day weather analysis portion of initial training would remain at OKC (and might in fact be expanded to cover aspects of EFAS weather training).

He also added that preliminary plans for OASIS training will be undertaken in May/June in conjunction with the OCT. After the contract award in August, the training preparation will begin in earnest. He stated that management has rejected the establishment of a lab at the Academy for initial hires with OASIS; only a six position facility will be available there; Coffelt stated that a 12 position system at OKC would be necessary for purposes of efficiency and educational quality. t ATTENDEES FOR NAATS: Ron Maisel (Chair), Ward Simpson, Craig Campbell, and Gary Simms FOR FAA: Shan Franklin, Lyle Miller, Bob Geranis, Carol Gaunt, Bill Smith, Mike Coffelt, Baxter Sowell, Bill Ellis, Art Benzle, and Pete Quinn.

Back to Table of Contents

Capitol Hill Report

by Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside,
NAATS Government Relations Consultant

As expected, the new session of Congress has been a busy time for Irv Woods and me. We are both involved in a number of developing issues and projects for NAATS including the FAA's FY 1998 budget, the upcoming appropriations cycle and federal legislation reinstating expired aviation excise taxes. Additionally, we are closely watching DOT Secretary Slater's first few weeks in office and what we hope will be the forthcoming nomination of an FAA administrator. Following are some highlights of these areas.

FAA's FY 1998 Budget

The Administration requested $4.9 million in additional funding for OASIS in FY 1998. This amount is targeted by FAA to continue its plans for a multi-year procurement Obviously, we would like to see OASIS fully funded as soon as possible. Given the current "balance the budget at all costs" environment, plus the developing problems with the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, full OASIS funding is increasingly unlikely this year. The table below details the Administration's overall FAA funding request, by function, in millions of dollars:

Congressional Meetings

In conjunction with lobbyists from NATCA and PASS, Irv and I began a series of meetings with staff of members of the House Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations. These meetings, which will be extended to the Senate panel and to authorizing subcommittees, are designed to ensure that relevant Members of Congress are all aware of the priorities of FAA's employee groups during the coming year. We also will be meeting with subcommittee staff members to brief them on our activities, reactions and priorities.

Generally, our reception and feedback from these staff members have been favorable. Much follow-up remains, however, especially in the area of FSS staffing, safety work force designation and 1-800 line cuts. We believe these meetings, while time-consuming, will assist NAATS in further enhancing our working relationships with members of these important panels while laying the groundwork both for new staffers and issues of long-term importance.

Aviation Excise Taxes/Airport and Airways Trust Fund

The last few weeks have generated a great deal of activity on the issue of renewing the expired aviation excise taxes. Hearings were held by the House Aviation Subcommittee, House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance, all of which are focusing on a quick reinstatement of the expired taxes while Congress wrestles with the difficult question of whether and how it should impose user fees. At this writing, it appears legislation to impose a "quick fix" on this issue is on a fast track in both houses of Congress and that action will be taken during the week of February 24.

The sudden activity is the result of realization by the Treasury Department that an also-expired provision of the tax code allowed airlines to forego making quarterly payments as it had thought. This, coupled with similar expiration of the Department's authority to transfer receipts from the General Fund to the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, resulted in a "crisis atmosphere" with the realization that this financial cupboard may be bare as early as mid-March. Unfortunately, the opportunities for Congressional mischief (i.e., creating new "user fees") as a result of these problems cannot be overstated and requires Irv and me to closely monitor developments.

DOT/FAA Leadership

Incoming SECDOT Slater's excellent background in surface transportation issues was a strong selling point to the Administration and the Senate in, respectively, nominating and quickly confirming him to replace Federico Pena. However, his inexperience in aviation issues means that the new FAA administrator must have a solid background in them to compensate. At this writing, no formal nomination has been made but all signs point to former NTSB chair Carl Vogt, a retired naval aviator and current aviation attorney in Washington. Vogt recently obtained an endorsement from AOPA and ranks very high on all observers' lists as the likely nominee. His background in aviation policy matters should result in at least a well-informed administrator. His outlook on FSS issues, however, not known to us at this time. We hope to report more fully to the NAATS membership on any nominee's views toward the FSS workforce in the near future.

As always, please let Irv or me know if you have any questions or comments on these or other issues confronting NAATS and the Congress.

Back to Table of Contents

Collective Bargaining in the Federal Sector

By Gary D. Simms,
NAATS Executive Director

This is the second in a series of articles on the history, background, rules and requirements, and an analysis of collective bargaining in the federal sector. This is intended to supplement the materials offered by NAATS to our facreps in training, and to explain much about collective bargaining to other NAATS members in the hope that their increased understanding will lead to increased activity.

Chapter 71 - An Overview

Chapter 71 is the legislative framework that creates, from a statutory and legal sense, the collective bargaining relationship between Management and Labor in most of the Federal Government. While much of its language is interpreted by arbitrators, the FLRA, and the courts through the historical lens of the Executive Orders, the language itself is worth close examination.

As noted in Part I, the official title of this system of law is "The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute." It is also referred to as "Subpart F - Labor-Management and Employee Relations" of Title 5 of the United States Code. Most frequently, the nickname "Chapter 71" is used to refer to this complex statutory system.

Chapter 71 is divided into four principle subchapters, each described below. Key parts of Chapter 71 are included in footnotes which accompany the text.

Subchapter 1 - General Provisions

The first subchapter of Chapter 71 includes the critically important Findings and Purpose made by Congress when it enacted Chapter 71. These provisions state the reasons why Congress felt that it was important to adopt the statute, and it explains the rationale and justification for the legislatively created system.

The findings⁽¹⁾ underscore that in the view of Congress, the justification for a collective bargaining system within the Federal Sector is not some grant of Congressional largess, but is rather a hard-headed, clear-eyed decision based on effective management of the public enterprise. As the findings state, there is evidence, from both the public sector and the private sector, that a statutory right for employees to gather together collectively into labor organizations and bargain with the employer "safeguards the public interest." Not only that, but organizing into labor unions and bargaining through them supports the "effective conduct of public business."

This is not to be a static, unmoving set or rules. Instead, the statutory system is designed to be dynamic, as the system will face "continued development." This development will be marked by "implementation of modern and progressive work practices".

These findings are not mere verbiage or boilerplate. They are substantive and important because they tell management that they have an obligation - as managers - to support the process of collective bargaining because it and labor organizations which conduct the bargaining are in the public interest.

Contrast this, if you will, with the private sector legislative language of the National Labor Relations Act. While employers in the private sector are required to engage in collective bargaining once a labor organization attains representational status, they are free to fight against the establishment of the union's majority status, albeit according to strict rules of conduct. In the federal sector, however, managers are told - up front and clearly - that "labor organizations and collective bargaining" are "in the public interest." It follows that managers who oppose either the formation of labor organizations or the performance of collective bargaining are acting in a manner contrary to the public interest. In other words, unless managers support unions and collective bargaining, they are not performing their jobs in the way that Congress has directed them to perform.

Thus, when the union representatives comes to the bargaining table to meet with their management counterparts, they come with the knowledge that by their actions, they are acting in the public interest. They don't have to prove that they have a right to be present, they don't have to apologize for the positions they take, and they don't have to shrink from creative and progressive courses of conduct. The Findings of Chapter 71 make it clear that these are precisely what the Congress expects - even demands - from labor organizations.

The Findings tell us why Congress has taken the steps necessary to create a Labor-Management system in the civil service. The Purpose section states what the Congress intends to do.⁽²⁾ And the "what" is simply stated: the law is designed to set forth "rights and obligations" of employees and "establish procedures" for the Federal Government. This underscores the even-handedness of the Act. It talks not only about rights but also about obligations. It talks about employees, and the need to interpret the statute consistently with an "effective and efficient Government." But even in this last phrase, it is important to read the Purpose in context. We are to interpret the statute in a manner consistent with an "effective and efficient Government" but, we have already established before that unionization and collective bargaining contribute to effective Government. Thus, the framers of this Chapter want us to interpret the legislation in a way that meets the needs of unionization and collective bargaining because they are an important aspect of effective government.

Subchapter I begins its description of the federal sector Labor-Management system with the rights of the individual. We live in a society, after all, which looks to individual rights, and not group rights. Despite the findings that unions and collective bargaining are indeed in the public interest, Section 7102, Employees' rights, makes it abundantly clear that the individual employee has the right to form, join, or assist a labor organization - but also has the right to refrain from such activity. This includes the right to act as a representative for a labor union (elected officer, agent, etc.) and to present the views of the union to heads of agencies and to Congress. ⁽³⁾ It also specifically states that employees have the right to engage in collective bargaining through representatives chosen by employees.

The definitions which appear in Section 7103 are very important, because they provide the basis for understanding what the system is about. Thus, for example, an "employee" is defined as an individual employed by the agency or an individual whose employment has ceased because of an unfair labor practice. The definition of "employee" excludes from the coverage of the act foreign citizens hired and serving overseas; the uniformed services; Foreign Service officers or employees; supervisors or managers; and individuals who participates in an illegal strike.

This is the basis for the fact that individuals who leave the bargaining unit to assume a management position or a supervisory position, must cede their union membership. (On the other hand, it can be argued that such temporary assignments do not require the individual to resign from the Union.) And the section underscores a theme which runs throughout the statute: strikers lose their rights.

The term "agency" is defined as an Executive agency, the Library of Congress, and the Government Printing Office, but excludes the GAO, the FBI, the CIA, NSA, TVA, the FLRA, or the FSIP. Thus, virtually all Executive agencies other than those involved in investigations or police activity are part of the Chapter 71 system.

The definition of a "labor organization" is important because it includes the legal requirements for a union's existence:

(1) it is composed - in whole or in part - of employees

(2) employees participate

(3) employees pay dues

(4) the purpose of the union is to deal with the agency on grievances and conditions of employment

(5) it cannot discriminate based on race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, preferential civil service status, political affiliation, marital status, or handicap

(6) it cannot advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government

(7) it cannot be sponsored by an agency

(8) it cannot participate in strike activity

Other critical definitions listed in this section (collective bargaining agreement, grievance, supervisor, collective bargaining, conditions of employment, etc.) will be discussed in subsequently.

Subchapter I next moves to a description of the Federal Labor Relations Authority and its composition and powers. FLRA's essential mission is to provide leadership in establishing policies and guidance under the statute, to issue rules and regulations, and to resolve a range of particular issues (e.g., appropriateness of bargaining units, resolve unfair labor practice charges, review arbitration awards). Subchapter I concludes with an articulation of specific management rights.

Subchapter II - Rights and Duties of Agencies and Labor Organizations

Subchapter II of Chapter 71 outlines the "meat" of the statutory scheme. For labor organizations, Section 7111 is of critical importance, because it provides for "exclusive recognition" of a union following a secret ballot election in what the FLRA determines to be an "appropriate bargaining unit." The process calls for the filing of a petition by 30% of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. The FLRA investigates the petition, and eventually conducts an election. How to determine the appropriate bargaining unit is outlined in Section 7112. The critical element is to "ensure employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guarantied" by Chapter 71. There is no single appropriate unit - rather, there can be different appropriate units based on a wide variety of factors. "An" appropriate unit can be established based on an agency, plant, installation, a functional or another basis if there is a "community of interest among the employees in the unit and [it] will promote effective dealings" with the agency.

The subchapter also includes the cornerstone of Union rights and responsibilities in Section 7114. These are discussed in detail in the next Part of this work, but in general provide for exclusive representational status, the right to be present at discussions, the obligation to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith. Section 7115 provides for dues allotments.

Section 7116 lists the unfair labor practices, including those which involve management and those which involve unions, and Section 7118 discusses the procedures for the resolution of unfair labor practice charges

Section 7117 includes requirements for bargaining in good faith, and Section 7119 discusses the procedures under which negotiation impasses are resolved through the operation of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the Federal Service Impasse Panel.

Section 7120 lists the standards of conduct for labor unions. These are designed to make sure that labor unions are truly representative, that they are conducted in accord with democratic principles, and that they are free of corruption. As part of this process, the statute calls for annual submission of comprehensive financial statements and for the avoidance of conflicts of interest.

Subchapter III - Grievances

The third section of Chapter 71 covers the details of the grievance procedure - the one element that is required by law to be in every collective bargaining agreement in the federal sector. As is discussed in more detail in Part 4, grievances concern virtually any matter relating to employment, except for allegations regarding violations of prohibited political activity, retirement or insurance, suspensions or removals, appointment or examination, or classification actions which don't reduce grade or pay.

The subchapter describes the interplay between matters which can be grieved, or which can be appealed through other routes, such as allegations of prohibited personnel actions through the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the subchapter describes how exceptions are taken to arbitration awards, and how judicial review comes into play.

Subchapter IV - Administrative and Other Provisions

Section 7131 of Chapter 71 provides for official time for employees who represent labor organizations in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. It specifically states that the number of employees who are provided official time are not to exceed the number representing the agency during the collective bargaining process.

Internal union business, defined to include solicitation of membership, elections of labor organization officials, and collection of dues, must be performed in nonduty time. Thus, critics of so-called "union time" in recent highly publicized allegations of unfairness at various federal agencies (particularly Social Security) fail to understand that union representatives are allowed to engage in representational duties only, and that the award of official time is part of a plan which sees such representation as being in the public interest. For all other activities undertaken by union officials, official time is granted in any amount that the agency and the exclusive representative believe to be "reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest."

Subchapter IV also contains provisions for subpoena power for the FLRA and the Panel, FLRA statistical reporting requirements, the grant of authority to issue regulations by the FLRA, FSIP, and FMCS, and continuation language for existing laws and regulations.

In summary, Chapter 71 creates a system where unions and collective bargaining are considered to be a positive aspect of employee relations in the federal sector. Congress has determined that unions and the bargaining process are positive forces for efficient and effective administration of the Executive Branch. By outlining mutual responsibilities, obligations, and rights, by providing for the resolution differences between Labor and Management through third party activity, and by providing with a mechanism for enforcement of its provisions, Congress through Chapter 71 created a dynamic system with the potential for growth to meet the needs of an efficient and effective National Government.

1. "Section 7101. Findings and purpose

(a) The Congress finds that -

(1) experience in both private and public employment indicates that the statutory protection of the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them --

(A) safeguards the public interest,

(B) contributes to the effective conduct of public business, and

(C) facilitates and encourages the amicable settlements of disputes between employees and their employers involving conditions of employment; and

(2) the public interest demands the highest standards of employee performance and the continued development and implementation of modern and progressive work practices to facilitate and improve employee performance and the efficient accomplishment of the operations of Government.

Therefore, labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest."

<back>

2. "(b) It is the purpose of this chapter to prescribe certain rights and obligations of the employees of the Federal Government and to establish procedures which are designed to meet the special requirements and needs of the Government. The provisions of this chapter should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government."

<back>

3. In this regard, the statute specifically overrules the so-called "gag order" issued by President Theodore Roosevelt which prevented federal employees from airing their grievances to Congress.

<back>

Back to Table of Contents

In Brief...

Wolf Criticizes Lack of FAA Head. House Transportation chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) slammed President Clinton for failing to nominate a new, permanent head of the FAA promptly. In a letter to the President, Wolf stated "I am very disappointed in your administration's failure to nominate a qualified individual for this critical position in a timely manner." He also stated that the FAA "is in desperate need of permanent executive leadership." Since Administrator Hinson resigned, the FAA has been under the Acting Administration of Linda Daschle and then Barry Valentine.

Ticket Tax Needed Now: Slater. New Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said that Congress must act immediately to restore the lapsed ticket tax to make sure that the Aviation Trust Fund survives. During his confirmation hearings, he said that such a restoration "has to be one of our highest priorities." Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said that he plans on early action to restore the tax. "We will try to bring this up as quickly as possible in the Senate," he said. However, the outlook is less clear in the House, where the Ways and Means Committee has set up a task force to review taxes on aviation taxes and the federal gasoline tax as well. Slater added that in the short term, unless the ticket tax is restored, there will be a shortfall in FY '97 funds for the FAA.

1998 Pay Raise Linked to Pension Contribution. President Clinton's proposed budget for 1998 includes a projected pay raise of 2.8% for federal employees. However, the proposal also calls for a postponement of the COLA adjustment from January to April in 1998 (and in the subsequent 3 years as well). In another shot to federal employees, employees would be asked to contribute more in their share of pension costs, phased in over 3 years starting in January 1999. The total increase over the three year period would amount to 0.5% of salary (up from the present 7% most federal employees contribute now).

A Fond Farewell is sent in from Mark Boberick to Herman Benson, 81, founder of the Association for Union Democracy (AUD) who recently retired as Executive Director. For decades, Herman has committed himself to the idea that internal union democracy is essential for a strong labor movement. He founded AUD 30 years ago because he recognized that unionists in conflict with their leadership need continuing assistance from pro-union supporters ffamiliar with labor's practices and problems. It was with Herman's guidance that the NAATS Board of Directors teamed up with our present legal counsel, Mr. Arthur Fox, noted labor attorney and AUD Board member. The Association for Union Democracy is the only national pro-labor organization dedicated solely to advancing the principals and practice of internal democracy in the American labor movement by promoting membership participation, free speech, and fair elections, so that union decisions reflect the will of their membership. Herman's contribution to the labor movement and its individual members and his vision of union democracy in the workplace and in American society as a whole is unique and unsurpassed. A retirement celebration is scheduled for March 22, 1997 in New York.

Back to Table of Contents

NAATS CRITICAL INCIDENT STRESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

By Gerry Conlon,
NAATS Peer Debriefer, BTV AFSS

For years, many FAA employees have felt that management didn't care about them personally. Indeed, the desire to be appreciated, and see evidence of that appreciation expressed from ones' employer, permeates our society. Just read "Dilbert" on any given day.

NAATS, working in conjunction with the FAA, and following NATCA's lead, has just taken a meaningful step toward the caring for its' employees well-being. We now have a Critical Incident Response Team, in place and on call, ready to respond immediately when their services are needed, wherever the need arises.

During the week of Jan. 27-Jan. 31, NAATS members, representing all nine regions, accompanied by Mark Boberick (AAL), and Don McLennan (ANM), received training at CMD, to become certified Critical Incident Stress Debriefers (ClSD's). The training was given by Drs. Gloria Bullman and George Everly, two of the preeminent authorities in the ClSD field.

Also in attendance were about twenty NATCA representatives and several regional EAP Program managers, themselves receiving either initial or refresher training. CIS Debriefings have occurred in the terminal/center options for a couple of years now. Briefly, Critical Incident Stress is a normal reaction to sudden and unexpected events beyond the range of normal human experience. On average, 8O% of individuals exposed to a Critical Incident will experience this form of stress.

Critical Incident Stress Debriefings take place when those experiencing this stress need help to recover from their experience. Debriefings are cathartic in nature. Personnel experiencing CIS are provided the opportunity to vent their strong emotions and discuss their experiences in a safe environment, either a group setting or individually. Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the process. These debriefings facilitate recovery, and avoid the need for more extensive and costly treatment. Critical Incident Stress Debriefings are the first step in the recovery process.

A "ClSD", or peer debriefer as we're known, are NAATS members who have been trained to respond to those individuals who might request a debriefing after a traumatic event has occurred. Once notified that an intervention is requested, arrangements are made, where typically an EAP mental health professional and a peer debriefer would call or visit the facility of the affected individuals. In a "debriefing" we attempt to work through the emotional aftermath of a traumatic incident, by meeting, but mostly listening to, those affected by what they've seen and experienced. By assisting people to talk about and work through the event, they're able to return to their normal lives more expeditiously.

Critical Incidents include, but are not confined to the following:

• Aircraft crashes
• Catastrophic natural events (earthquake, hurricane, flood, fires etc.)
• Threat of violence and/or injury to a co-worker on the job
• Death/suicide of a co-worker on/off the job
• Hostage situation

Sometimes, when only individual is affected, an intervention, known as a "defusing", is done over the phone. On other occasions, when several or more people are involved, a debriefing is held which is attended by those affected by the incident, a mental health professional (usually provided by the EAP), and the certified peer debriefer.

The goal of debriefings, is to begin the healing process. Talking about, sharing, and realizing that ones' reactions to trauma are not unique, but common to all, is the beginning of the healing. While the ClSD teams have begun initial regional and facility briefings, educational packages are being formulated for distribution to all facilities, NAATS reps and employees. The following Peer Debriefers are available should you have any additional questions:

National Coordinators

Regional Representatives