In one of the strongest statements issued to date by NAATS about the future of Flight Service, President Mike McAnaw asked the Congress to order the FAA to hire 100 new controllers into Flight Service in FY '98, with another 100 in each of the following three fiscal years. The text of his remarks follows:

I am Michael F. McAnaw, President of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS). As President of NAATS, I still work regularly at an FAA field facility, as a GS-2152. At Seattle Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS), I make daily contact with the public we serve - with our customers.

NAATS is the exclusive representative of the more than 2,450 controllers who work at the Flight Service Stations throughout the United States, and I am here today to give you the views of the people who provide vital safety functions to the flying public.

My testimony is in two parts: First, our recommendations on the FAA's FY 1998 budget and, second, a status report on the FAA's personnel reform efforts as mandated in the FY 1996 appropriations bill. I respectfully request that my entire written statement be made part of the record.

Before I begin, I want to take the opportunity of congratulating and welcoming the new members of the Subcommittee. We look forward to working with you all to further our mutual goals of making the FAA work more effectively, efficiently and safely. I also would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to the Chairman and members of this Subcommittee for their efforts during last year's appropriations cycle to secure adequate funding for the FAA's Operations budget, particularly with respect to the relocation of employees from facilities formerly designated as Auxiliary Flight Service Stations into Automated Flight Service Stations. While there are still several such facilities in the continental U.S. which have not been consolidated, we have received assurances from the FAA that all FSS employees will be relocated prior to the end of the current fiscal year. The action by the Committee last year was critical in achieving long-term savings for the FAA and American taxpayers.

We also appreciate your continued support of operational funding in general. Without your actions, there would have been severe adverse impacts on the day-to-day operations of the nation's air traffic control system. We are confident that you will again make sure that sufficient funds are allocated for Operations in FY 1998.

THE FAA'S BUDGET

1. OASIS

Whenever the media report an FAA equipment failure or a facility going off-line, it is the men and women working the air traffic control system who keep it operating - and who safeguard the lives of air travelers. While outages at radar facilities and control towers receive most of the publicity, they also occur at Flight Service Stations, inconveniencing the flying public and posing a hazard to safety and efficiency of aviation. We are the ones whose knowledge and experience can override the shortcomings of our equipment. Our biggest equipment concern is with OASIS. As you are aware, the FAA has designated the OASIS system as the replacement for current equipment in AFSS's, and within the last year the agency has moved towards a final purchase decision. In fact, OASIS is one of the original three "lead the fleet" examples of the new procurement authority at the FAA, which this panel was instrumental in establishing

We believe, however, that the only reason that the FAA is moving as quickly as it is moving on this program is because of the leadership demonstrated by this Committee. The OASIS program has been delayed for years, and would in all likelihood still be languishing were it not for the specific authorizing of funds for the program two years ago mandated by this Committee. But, your leadership is still needed on this critical procurement.

Mr. Chairman, there are 61 Automated Flight Service Stations in America. Each was established to replace more than a dozen Flight Service Stations over a decade ago. Each is now equipped with an antiquated, outdated Model 1 Full Capacity computer system. Each needs to be replaced by an OASIS system. The contractors have indicated that because OASIS is based largely on commercially-available, off-the-shelf technology, that they would have no problem installing 61 systems within months of a successful operational testing and evaluation procedure.

Despite the need, the FAA continues its foot-dragging. The agency currently plans to purchase/lease only 20 systems in a "first phase" of procurement. This would presumably be followed by a second purchase of 20, and then a third and final purchase. Mr. Chairman, this is an example of the FAA continuing to play politics with its procurement process. We all know that if all 61 units were purchased at one time, unit costs would be lower because the profit would not be front-end loaded by the contractor. In addition, the delays over two years would allow time for additional inflationary price increases. So from a strictly economic point of view, an immediate purchase of 61 systems makes the most sense. And as we pointed out already, the equipment needs to be replaced at each AFSS now - not three or four years from now.

We think that the FAA has another agenda here. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the FAA has been arguing for years that it needs "financial reform" (from user fees and similar sources) in large part so that it can have a "secure" funding source, free from "Congressional interference." We are concerned that the FAA is dividing this procurement in the hope that some form of independent financial reform, free from Congressional oversight, will in fact be adopted. The FAA would then be able to reduce the number of OASIS systems by consolidating AFSS facilities, unfettered by Congressional oversight. Mr. Chairman, we can't wait for OASIS any longer. The current M1FC system is on the verge of data overload, today. With the introduction of METAR/TAF (ICAO- standard weather information format), the system has been so overloaded that weather trending data has been reduced from three hours to two hours. This is a threat to the safety of the pilots we brief and to their passengers. When you fly on a general aviation or commuter aircraft, would you feel safer knowing that the FAA's real-time weather data bank has been reduced by one-third? Until OASIS is installed, this will be the case and is a very real threat to aviation safety and efficiency.

As this Committee is aware, the FAA continues to spend millions every year on the Direct User Access Terminal System (DUATS). You should know that these costs will largely disappear when OASIS is installed, because it will incorporate a DUATS- like function directly into Flight Service. This service can be continued for those of our customers who like to supplement their pilot briefings via this system. And in addition to saving millions each year, we will actually be able to provide even better service to our pilot customers, because the OASIS definition calls for an interactive DUATS capability, where a pilot can directly ask a Flight Service Controller specific questions about commonly-displayed data.

This is yet another reason why the FAA should proceed immediately with the OASIS procurement - for all 61 AFSS facilities.

2. RESTORE THE PIPELINE

Our second major concern for you to consider this year is the fact that Flight Service will not hire another new employee from outside of the Air Traffic Division of the FAA for at least three years. There have been virtually no new hires into Flight Service for more than 10 years. While I may be considered a senior Controller in the FAA, with close to 20 years' experience, within Flight Service I am still a relative newcomer. The FAA budget proposal once again does not include any provision for new personnel. This is tantamount to a decision to terminate our vital safety service - and the agency plans to do so it without coming clean with Congress or with the public. The FAA plans to reduce our numbers (primarily through attrition) for the foreseeable future. Congress should remind the FAA - and do so forcefully - that the controllers at Flight Service are part of the essential safety net for this nation's aviation industry, and that our numbers must be maintained and strengthened. We've been downsized already!

We have asked this Committee to look into this matter in the past, but the FAA has not been particularly forthcoming. Our workforce is rapidly aging; in fact, 40-50% are eligible to retire today, and by the year 2002, 80% of the workforce will be eligible to retire. It is of paramount importance to initiate a new pipeline for employees in Flight Service: not to increase the number of Air Traffic Controllers in Flight Service, but certainly to maintain our numbers at least at current levels. Mr. Chairman, the most recent figures available show that there are 2,456 Flight Service Controllers now, down over 200 from this time last year. The FAA itself projects continuing attrition of more than 150 per year for the next several years.

However, while the ranks of Flight Service Controllers has been allowed to thin, by more than 1000 since the PATCO strike in 1981, management and support staff at Flight Service Stations has fared much better. During this period, the number of Flight Service management personnel has decreased by only twelve individuals. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, if the Subcommittee wishes to closely examine ways to conserve scarce FAA resources without reducing the quantity or quality of services to the flying public, this is an area which should be more fully explored. We would be pleased to work with you and your colleagues to find ways to implement such savings.

Mr. Chairman, staffing levels at many AFSS's are already reaching critical levels. Numbers are so low in some locations that many employees cannot even taken annual leave because there simply are not enough people available to handle the workload. We strongly urge this Committee to require the FAA to hire, train, and place 100 new Controllers in Flight Service in FY '98, and an additional 100 in each of the three (3) fiscal years thereafter. Of course, this will not even maintain current staff numbers in Flight Service, because of attrition through retirement; but it is a step in the right direction. By including such a staffing requirement in the FY 1998 legislation, Congress will make sure that an adequately-staffed Flight Service is available to provide its critical safety functions to the public into the next century.

I have made the following recommendation to the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, and I think you should consider it as well:

"Hire controllers into Flight Service first, and develop a pipeline of employees that can eventually transfer into towers, approach control, and en route centers. This pipeline of controllers would learn the importance of aviation weather, talk to pilots and get a sense of what the pilot needs and desires before the pilots become mere targets on radar screens. This will give future controllers a more thorough understanding of all phases of weather, aviation and the mission of the FAA."

It is not an exaggeration to state that the FAA has made a policy decision - at the highest levels - to allow Flight Service to slowly disappear. The pieces of the puzzle are now clear: no new hires, attrition of the workforce to untenable levels, limiting the OASIS procurement to 20 systems (after all, there won't be enough Flight Service Controllers to operate more than 20 after attrition!) and slowly let Flight Service fade away. If the current FAA management wants to do away with Flight Service over the next decade or so, let them be forthright and say so to this Committee. We believe that if the issue is debated in the full light of public and Congressional scrutiny - and not simply allowed to happen by administrative fiat - that there is no doubt that the result will be continuing Flight Service as a valued component of the agency.

3. SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE COORDINATION

We have read with considerable concern in recent weeks about the unfortunate close calls between military and civilian aircraft taking place in what we call Special Use Airspace (SUA). The Committee may not be aware of the fact that for the past several years, Flight Service Controllers and their supervisors in the Forth Worth, Texas AFSS have been developing a system for SUA which could help prevent some of the SUA conflicts and incursions, especially those involving general aviation aircraft. This test program has been the brainchild of people at the local level, working together in a true spirit of Partnership, and holds the promise of providing for a more efficient utilization of airspace and more efficient routings for air carriers as well as General Aviation aircraft. We invite the Committee's attention to this SUA project, and we would be delighted to present more information on it to you or your staff, as well as invite you to see the system in action at the FTW AFSS.

Personnel Reform

As mandated by the FY 1996 DOT Appropriations bill, we have been hard at work with the FAA trying to establish a framework for a new personnel system to take us into the next century. While we have significant concerns about the process and its numerous components, we would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee as a whole for helping make sure that the vital protections of Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code were restored last year. As a result, our members can be assured that the changes taking place within the FAA's personnel system will occur with their elected representatives as full partners at the bargaining table.

Mr. Chairman, we know of your personal commitment to the rights of federal workers. The simple reinstatement of Chapter 71 has gone a long way to ensure that the transition to the new personnel system is going smoothly and meeting the safety needs of our air traffic control system. The help and consideration of you and your colleagues on the Subcommittee has been invaluable to us as we continue to work with the FAA to implement the reform you set in motion several years ago.

I am pleased to say that we are working closely with the FAA, and have experienced a positive atmosphere in large part. Nevertheless, we must note that little has happened in terms of personnel reform at the work place. While we as an organization have been expending significant resources to support our involvement in the ongoing process of FAA personnel reform, the FAA has delayed or "back-burnered" the most significant changes, and has been satisfied to tinker around the edges.

For example, we worked very closely with the FAA to develop what was called the Reorganization Plan, which would have effectuated many of the goals of the Administration by reducing the number of supervisory and staff support positions. The plan called for the gradual assumption of many of these duties by Flight Service Controllers, providing them with potentially exciting and interesting functionalities and work opportunities, and at the same time reducing the number of individuals in the supervisory and support ranks. This plan has been unceremoniously shelved by the FAA, and instead, a plan is now under consideration which will reduce the number of staff and support positions by a mere handful. We believe that an essential part of personnel reform must be a redistribution of duties and functions in a more efficient and enabling manner.

Despite the FAA's major push for personnel reform two years ago, as we pointed out, little has happened as of yet. It now appears likely that for employees represented by labor organizations within the FAA, most changes will take place in the next round of collective bargaining, scheduled to begin later this year. This can be an unparalleled opportunity for the FAA and its employees to come together in a spirit of true Partnership, utilizing the latest techniques in consensus-driven problem resolution, to creatively resolve decades of less-than-satisfactory employee/management relations.

We stand ready to use any method or technique which will achieve our goals: increased productivity, greater employee responsibility, a pay system which is rational and appropriately rewarding, and a working environment where safety is the highest priority at all times. We challenge the FAA to be just as creative and open to new thinking and new ideas. We also suggest that this Committee watch these developments closely, and encourage FAA's representatives to "think outside of the box" when meeting with us and our fellow organizations at the bargaining table. We have an opportunity to make a unique contribution to the air traffic control system, and we're eager to do just that.

Finally, I do want to say that in the last year, the FAA has taken partnership to a new level, and NAATS and other organizations are being included in a number of projects from their beginning. In the spirit of partnership found in the Charter of the National Labor Management Partnership Council at the FAA, we are working together for the safety of all aviation.

We thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide these comments. We look forward to working closely with you and your staff to ensure that the best interests of the flying public are protected. I would be pleased to respond to any questions. Thank you.

Back to Table of Contents

Message from President Mac

by Michael F. "Mac" McAnaw,
NAATS President

The following is the text of the oral statement made by President Mike McAnaw to Congress. The full text of the written statement appears above.

In the Federal Aviation Administration world, I am considered a senior employee. In the Flight Service world, I am a kid. I was hired in 1977 and will have 20 years of controller time this summer. I am eligible to retire August 2002. Remember, I am a junior controller in Flight Service. There has not been any hiring of new Flight Service controllers off the Civil Service rolls in over ten years. Did you know that 40-50% of the Flight Service controller workforce is eligible to retire today? By the year 2002, 80% of the Flight Service controllers will be eligible to retire. Flight Service stations across this country are at critical staffing levels. Year after year DOT/FAA officials have come to you and the Senate with a prepared script from OMB telling this Committee how many Flight Service controllers OMB believes the Federal Aviation Administration needs. In the necessity of aviation safety, I come to you to ask for help. The Federal Aviation Administration needs to hire controllers for Flight Service. There are approximately 2450 Flight Service controllers, down over 200 from this time last year. The Federal Aviation Administration needs to hire and train controllers for all of the options to include the center, tower and Flight Service. But, no where is the need more critical than in Flight Service. I made a recommendation to the recent White House Aviation Safety Committee and it is something for you to consider:

"Hire controllers into Flight Service first. Develop a pipeline of employees that can eventually transfer into towers, approach controls and enroute centers. This pipeline of controllers would learn the importance of aviation weather, talk to these pilots and get a sense of what the pilots' needs and desires are before the pilots become targets on the radar screens. This will give the future controllers a more thorough understanding of all phases of weather, aviation and the mission of FAA."

Finally, I want to say that in the last year, the Federal Aviation Administration has taken Partnership to a new level. The unions are being included in a number of projects from their conception. In NAATS' case, the OASIS and SUA are two of the projects. In the spirit of this new partnership, you will find the Charter of the National Labor Management Partnership Council. The Council is made up of six Federal Aviation Administration unions (NAATS, NATCA, PASS, AFGE, PACCE and NFFE) and Federal Aviation Administration Service Directors and Monty Belger. We are working together for the safety of all aviation.

Till next month,

Back to Table of Contents

From the Executive Director

by Gary D. Simms,
NAATS Executive Director

A New Pipeline of Members

If we at NAATS are going to be the water carriers for the future of Flight Service -and it's clear that there is no one else to do the heavy lifting - then we need the support of each and every member of the bargaining unit to do it effectively. That means we need more NAATS members.

This is a particularly critical year. Not only are we on the verge of securing a pipeline of new employees, but we are also getting the appropriations we need for OASIS. So it won't be too long before we can have the manpower and the equipment we need to do our jobs safely and effectively well into the 21st century.

But this year, we will also be negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. It will be a pace setter, because it will in all probability include many items that result from "personnel reform" - and will include new ways for doing business, and perhaps subjects and terms which previously were considered nonnegotiable in the Federal Sector.

So we face the possibility of new manpower, new equipment, and a new way of conducting Labor-Management affairs. In an agency where partnership is a possibility, the opportunities for meaningful change and a satisfying future have never been greater. But it all rests on your shoulders, people. Every NAATS member needs to get involved by bringing in more members. We shouldn't settle for 70% or even 80% representation - we need every unity employee as a dues paying NAATS Member now!

Back to Table of Contents

FSS CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION WORK GROUP REPORT

By Don McLennan,
NAATS Director

We read each and every piece of mail we received and organized all of your thoughts into appropriate categories. Many of you shared with us your thoughts about pay as well as classification. We captured all of these, and used the relevant classification information to derive the final values on which to build the system. They are: KSA's, Responsibility, Complexity, Volume, Workload, Quality, Living Environment and Special Circumstances or Activities. Each of these values has a specific definition and one to two dozen characteristics that help define the values reflected in your thoughts. These then translate into a description of work performed by FSS employees that demonstrates our unique contribution to the overall FAA mission.

We have been working towards the consideration of the possible alternatives that exist for designing new systems. We will then review the options we can pursue. We need to consider a number of possibilities and determine which types of systems would provide the greatest advantages in being most efficient but remain fair and equitable. We will be doing this the next time we meet on March 10-14 in Seattle, WA. You must remember there is more than one work group dedicated to the task of redesigning our personnel and organizational systems. Each work group, or maybe all of them, could have a significant impact on the final outcome of our unified efforts.

This is, essentially, the current status of the work group. Remember, you can reach us through the fax number, cc mail number or e-mail number listed on the survey you responded to earlier this year. Thank you for your support on this very important project.

Back to Table of Contents

COOPERS & LYBRAND STUDY OF FAA FINANCES: FAA'S ESTIMATES ARE "REASONABLE" BUT COSTS CAN BE CUT

by Gary D. Simms,
NAATS Executive Director

The law calling for the study also created a National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which will be composed of a cross section of the aviation community. This Commission will also receive the Coopers & Lybrand study.

The firm had an extremely short period of time within which to conduct its work and render conclusions: 90 days. And for once, an FAA contractor actually delivered its results on time. However, it appears that the short time frame prevented little more than the analysis of previously existing studies and investigations into FAA finances. Thus, there was less real analysis than data collection.

Many had assumed that the Coopers & Lybrand study would explore the so-called "funding gap" between anticipated income and expenses of the agency. However, the Coopers & Lybrand spokespersons denied that the study was aimed in that direction. Because they could not independently measure FAA costs or income, they were forced to rely on other studies conducted in recent years. As a result, they found the FAA's projections of costs to be "reasonable" under current circumstances; they also acknowledged that income projections were much more difficult to measure, given the fact that Congress is usually ready to fund the needs of the air traffic system in the United States.

As AOPA President Phil Boyer asked, "Perhaps the most significant outcome of this audit ? It shoots holes in the FAA's "funding gap,'" He added that "once you show there is no significant funding shortfall, you then blow away the Administration's argument for user fees."

The auditors for Coopers & Lybrand did concur that the agency's estimate of a $12 billion shortfall in income in a "status quo operating environment" was "reasonable." However, they also noted seven areas where significant cost cutting could take place: staffing and personnel, facility management and consolidation, communications, Maintenance, organization reengineering, productivity, and management reforms.

AOPA stood strongly with NAATS and Flight Service is rejecting the closure of Flight Service facilities or decommissioning primary surveillance radar.

Coopers & Lybrand noted that with the introduction of personnel reform in the FAA, there is an opportunity to negotiate lower wage costs than are now experienced. Many of the old tired FAA-funded studies call for elimination of differentials and overtime; the Coopers & Lybrand study called for reinvestigation and reconsideration of these, as well as consideration of separating the FAA's workforce from the federal government's annual COLA.

The study also calls for increased contracting out, particularly in the areas of communications, maintenance, and supply services. There is a suggestion to consider privatizing pre-flight services within Flight Service as well. This, however, is another example of the study's inclusion of all of the ideas thrown about for some time - and many issues which have been thrown out as well.

For example, the Coopers & Lybrand study bases many of its ATC recommendations on the NAS Version 2.0 study, which readers of NAATS NEWS know full well has been largely discredited - and is itself under revision by the FAA. Thus, assumptions about future growth of traffic, reductions in work force numbers and facilities, consolidation of services, and etc. which form the core of NAS Version 2.0 make up a significant portion of the Coopers & Lybrand analysis.

There are, however, some good and constructive points made by the study. For example, it was noted that the FAA has done virtually nothing to enhance productivity in recent years - and in fact cannot even measure any productivity levels accurately. In addition, the FAA even lacks a workable cost accounting system, so that they (and Coopers & Lybrand and Congress) are unable to precisely determine how the FAA's appropriations are actually spent in any given time frame.

The study points out further that the FAA, despite claims for reform, remains inconsistent in its attempt to reform its management practices. They find, as NAATS has recently stated, that upper echelons of management are not really committed to real change in the way the FAA conducts its business.

The study calls for enhanced employee productivity - but there is no direct mention of the Reorganization Plan which appears to have been repudiated by FAA management, even though it would serve to markedly enhance productivity by eliminating unnecessary levels of supervision at the worksite.

This study will be reviewed not only by the FAA and the new Aviation Commission, but by Congress itself. Hearings in the House of Representatives were scheduled for late March at the time of this writing. Please keep your eyes open for additional information.

Back to Table of Contents

Congressional Update: Silly Season In Full Swing

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

For example, NAATS President McAnaw appeared last month before the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations to discuss the FAA's budget for FY 1998. Mac did a great job with the panel, forcefully making the point that FSS personnel must have the updated capabilities of OASIS if they are to cope with forecast upturns in traffic as well as alerting the Congress to the pending loss of so many seasoned professionals from the FS option as the workforce collectively approaches retirement.

Also, NAATS has been working with the House Subcommittee on Aviation to respond to the recently-issued study of FAA's financial situation prepared by Big Six accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand. This study called for closure/consolidation of AFSS facilities and reductions in agency personnel as ways of making up the forecast shortfall in the FAA's budget through the year 2002. Of course, that same study ignored the safety implications of facility closures and deep cuts in FAA personnel even while it concluded that the agency had no clue of the savings it should expect from personnel reform or even how much the actual shortfall, if any, would be in the coming years.

Plus, another formal examination of how to finance the FAA and how well it is managed is gearing up as SECDOT Slater last month presented his list of members for the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, a creation of last year's reauthorization bill. Heavy on airports and air carriers, the NCARC's membership is completely devoid of anyone with formal ties to general aviation or airline passengers, regional carriers and the military, for that matter. Members appointed by House and Senate leaders were similar in background, although Slater did name former Congressman Norm Mineta, now a transportation executive with Lockheed-Martin, as the Commission's head. Mineta, a long-time friend of Irv and me who chaired the House Subcommittee on Aviation for almost a decade, can be counted on to strive for fairness and equal representation of all points of view on the commission, but he is simply outnumbered.

And, last but certainly not least, the FAA announced last month it is finally poking the camel's nose under the tent by implementing a minimal amount of user fees, as directed by Congress. Beginning May 19, fees will be charged to aircraft operators who use FAA services but do not land or takeoff from a U.S. airport. Plus, the FAA is also developing the first user fee on domestic operators, targeting turbine-powered general aviation aircraft to recover the costs of ATC services they receive.

For additional information on these and other activities in which NAATS is engaged, please feel free to contact Gary, Irv or me.

Back to Table of Contents

NAATS BOARD MEETING

The NAATS Board of Directors held its regularly scheduled quarterly meeting in March. The following are meeting highlights:

President's Report: Mac reported that a grievance had been filed on two CPP moves relating to FSS 's in Alaska. On NFP, Mac stated that he had decided to postpone the training for the NFP coordinators, but that once held, the meeting was successful. The next meeting is scheduled for May 6-9 at CMD. There was discussion about the failure of the management side to bring decision making authority directly to the Partnership process at the national level.

On the FAA Labor Management Council, Mac reported on a recent meeting where travel PRIBs was raised; Mac handed off the issues (related to travel) to Ward. Mac stated that Wally was in the loop for the PRIB process. On the DOT partnership, Mac stated that they had received a presentation on diversity.

On the issue of safety-related work force, OPM has rejected the FAA's request for exemption from the NPR standards because of safety related work force standards. We are back to square one.

Executive Director's Report:

Simms reported on plans for the 1997 national meeting, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, October 29 and 30 in LAS. He gave a report on the NAATS website, and a report on current financial activities.

Director of Labor Relations Report

Mike Doring gave a report on labor relations activities. The training in Phoenix was successful. On ULP's, we had to withdraw the XFSS consolidation ULP because we could not show harm. The ULP is still outstanding on CWSU; there is also a ULP outstanding on the 800 line cuts, but the FAA is arguing that they are not "cutting" any lines. We did win a ULP in McAlister, and the decisions been posted.

The EEO/removal arbitration case was heard in Great Lakes; transcripts are expected shortly for the two day hearing, and final written arguments are expected shortly. Other pending cases include an arbitration on smoking shelters; highest previous rate of pay in NW; CPP moves from Alaska, and a CPP move to Wichita.

On AWS, the "management guidance" from FAA has not changed policy. We have no evidence of watch schedule impasses at the local level. Managers continue to attempt to change AWS at the local level; the FAA has been ducking our attempts to get FAA headquarters to clarify the facts that they are sending advice to facilities which conflicts with the requirements of the contract. Again: if the facilities can't come to an agreement on the watch schedule, an impasse should be declared at the local level, and the issue elevated to the regional level for resolution.

CEO's Report

Wally Pike gave his report to the Board. Midterm bargaining status has been updated regularly. There is nothing new to report on the PRAC or PRIBs (still being discussed and bargained by Wally); there also have been no changes in the FAM program although an announcement is expected soon.

On CWSU, it was noted that NAATS did not initiate the assignment of CWSU work; rather, this came entirely from the FAA as a unilateral management decision and action ­ in fact, we have filed a ULP over the FAA's refusal to negotiate with us on CWSU. Our policy has been that if FAA employees undertake CWSU duties, we support the function in our facilities.

Reorganization Work Group

Maisel reported that the subject has been changed to "reinvention" and that all of our bargaining proposal have been rejected. Enforcement will commence through Doring when the FAA begins implementation.

Flight Service Classification and Compensation Work Group

McLennan reported that the Group actually will produce a classification standard, and pay itself will be negotiated down the road. Within the next few meetings, discussion will focus on what the classification system will look like. It is clear that the issue of centering the standard on what is done is critical, in addition to complexity and activity level. There is also concern about creating different pay levels within Flight Service, and an understanding that additional funding for salary will be difficult to obtain from Congress unless the FAA becomes more active in reallocation of funds. When the work group finishes its work, a document will be presented to Ron Morgan, and we assume that negotiations will take place thereafter.

OASIS

Kurt Comisky gave a report to the Board. The January CIP issued by the FAA was put together by Vince Shultz at ASD. OASIS is included as a system to enhance efficiency. The assumption is also that staffing will be reduced by 29% over the time frame (2020) - and this may be the source of efficiency enhancements. Their own analysis is between 11,000 and 12,000 activities per specialists (plus DUATS services).

The JRC approved OASIS with a duration of 10-15 years. SEA is now first for OASIS installation. 17 inch monitors will be used (even though most wanted 20") because of cost. The ICSS replacement mission needs statement was also produced, and the claim is that interactive DUATS requires it; more significant, however, is that it would support several recommendations of the Architecture Work Force (including a national call transfer capability, and offloading radio frequencies).

The SIR2 has just been released for OASIS (what they are telling the vendors the FAA wants). The IPT team decided last fall to replace the consoles. However, it now appears that the current consoles can be modified to support 2 17" monitors. The new statement of work requires the contractor to meet OSHA requirements. Having DUATS in each facility is not a requirement; up to 320 connections would however be required (instead of the 240 of the current contractors). In terms of implementation, the original buy is 6 AFSS's (including OKC and Atlantic City). Tests will start this June in the contractors' facilities (OCT). There will be a contract award prior to September 30, 1997. There is then a 120 day period of time for interface development. SEA would receive a system in February, 1998 for a 60 day OT&E. This is followed by an additional 30 days of tests OT&EI; then a recommendation is made to the Administrator. Future deliveries appear to be based on activity level. While it is clear that the systems are to be installed in AFSS's, and that there is no provision for moving them to other locations, it is also clear that the agency does not plan the procurement of 61 systems.

Flight Service Architecture Work Group

Ron Dawson reported that he, Wally and Mac had briefed Darlene Freeman on our minority views, and she informed us that there will be another review of the air traffic operational concept, which will revisit many of these issues once again. The report itself has not been approved at the ATS-1 level; with Gore's insistence on moving up the equipment process to 2002, there will certainly be additional discussions.

CISD

Mark Boberick gave the report, noting that there are now 11 people certified nationwide to give debriefings as needed. The NATCA participants have been very helpful. Mark suggested that Terry Salzbrenner be appointed as the third national coordinator, and it was agreed by the Board to do so. The first debriefing has taken place (at Kenai).

NAATS PAC

Irv noted that we have $13,500 in the account, and we are gaining about $750 per pay period.

Legislative Priorities

Woods reported that we are stressing the pipeline, safety-related work force, and OASIS. Other hearings later on this year will include status reports on personnel and procurement reform, as well as ATC modernization and the Gore Commission recommendations.

Appointment of a Treasurer

Mac nominated John Westlehoff as Treasurer, and Jim Mooney to the committee; it was approved unanimously by the Board.

OCCP

Ron Maisel has entered a regional understanding on Organizational Cultural Change Process, dealing with issues of a hostile work environment. It has started as an Eastern Region initiative, and it may turn into a national initiative. No negotiation has taken place as yet. They have received $200,000 to test the project. NATCA is a participant in this activity as well.

Other Committee Reports:

OSH ­ Mac announced that he will be attending the next OSHECOM when it is scheduled. Mac will invite Suzanne Pellosmaa to accompany him to the meeting.

FSDPS ­ Scott Chapman reported that progress has been quite slow on the conversion to AOS; it appears that AOS has only recently been brought into the conversation. The NAATS list-serve being maintained by Chapman has been an effective communications vehicle. The issue of part-timing of FSDPS facilities is increasingly contentious among the facilities, with differing views on the issue among various facilities. Mac noted that an old NAATS policy was to oppose part-timing of FSDPS. The Board agreed to leave this issue to the regions individually as appropriate.

Metar/TAF­ It was noted that the work group has completed its functions.

Regional Reports Alaska ­ Mark reported that the DF will not be phased out; there is a report that additional employees will be asked to participate in the rotation system during summer months; there is a question about reimbursement for travel under Order 1500.

( Northwest Mountain ­ John Dibble raised a concern about individuals using the hot line to bypass the union. Many of these complaints seem to concern allegations of a hostile work environment.

New England ­ Kurt Comisky reported on consideration of a waiver of the restructuring requirements of secretarial support, and possibly transferring individuals into the 2152 series and into our bargaining unit. His region is being aggressive in regard to weather training for Flight Service.

Eastern ­ Maisel report that one facrep has withdrawn from the facility Partnership; Ron has directed him to reenter the Partnership. Others noted that there are several facilities around the country which are facing similar problems due to the fact that the managers are refusing to act as partners.

Southern ­ Campbell reported that several unwarranted ULP's have been filed. Gar Tucker has resigned, and he had positive comments about NAATS at his retirement party.

Great Lakes ­ Dolan asked that all regions provide him with names of participants for Oshkosh ASAP. It will be held 7/30 ­ 8/5. He asked approval to appoint Nancy Bayte to the national training committee, and was approved. Negotiations are still on hold regarding DF (although he does want any information on decommissioning attempts). . Bill has declined the opportunity of participating in an Air Traffic Teamwork Enhancement (ATTE) training at this time. He suggested that the course be forwarded to the NFP for consideration.

Back to Table of Contents

Letters to the Editor

Our managers do not understand why we are not happy campers, and why more people don't volunteer for additional duties like OJTI or bid for QATS or Training Specialist. I find it very difficult to maintain a positive attitude these days when so many negative things are happening in our career field. Elements of Congress want to downsize the federal workforce, causing the FAA to restructure our facility staffing so we cannot meet the needs of our users. They want us to make additional contributions to our medical and retirement benefits.

That's for starters! Now, some of our own FAA leadership are willing to sacrifice Flight Service to privatization or consolidate automated stations to a number so low, we will not be able to give our users equal or better service. Effectively, we will be driving the last few nails into our own coffin. keenly, the FAA discovered they bungled our 1-800 telephone contract but, instead of fixing it, they allowed AT&T to remove many of these lines and now they are trying to bamboozle all of us into believing we do not need these lines operationally. They want to take away our overtime and give us comp time instead, delete holiday in-lieu of pay, controller differential, Sunday pay, and night differential. FAA headquarters has forwarded to all regional offices a new AWS Management Tool to help determine if the AWS is having an adverse impact. The formula they use is "supposed" to highlight inefficiencies in the AWS, i.e., does the AWS increase operating expenses (they are really hot about paying overtime), or does the AWS create other problems that interfere with air traffic operations. Gee guys, what was the rationale for giving us the AWS in the first place? I guess we need to reinvent the wheel! Our facility manager wants to cut the AWS schedule into a 75/25 (8 hour/AWS) split, that is a dramatic reversal of our present schedule. That really pleased the less senior journeymen! It did have one unintentional effect - it opened everyone's eyes on the floor.

My final frustration is provided by our own coworkers, the non-dues paying bargaining unit members. Some feel it's not politically correct to speak ill of our brethren. It seems to me that our jobs, benefits, and retirement are extremely vulnerable these days. We need to be uniting right now, we need everyone to help shoulder the cost of keeping our jobs. The only answer is the Union; there are no other organizations out there that will go to the wall for our option. We have many qualified and dedicated individuals who are giving much of their free time and in many circumstances, precious time with family, fighting to keep our option alive and they receive little or no thanks. I personally don't buy the argument, "I can't afford it, I really need the money." Hey, "this just in," - money is tight for all of us, most of us have working spouses and we still live paycheck to paycheck, but we give and all of us reap the benefits. If a person has had a problem with the Union, now is not the time to quibble, we need everyone to join the Union and raise a groundswell of support that cannot help but be a force that will overcome these attacks on our jobs. -

Fraternally yours,

Chuck Kuennen,
Rancho Murieta Hub Rep

Back to Table of Contents

FLIGHT SERVICE VISION STATEMENT, DRAFT 1.5.5

by Dan Hart & Ron McKinnis,
NAATS Regional Coordinators

The following is a work in progress, under the leadership of the authors, to develop our own views on the future of Flight Service. Please send comments to NAATS HQ or to the authors by May 15. Thanks for your consideration and assistance.

As federal employees, we believe that some functions of society are best served by government. NAATS ( the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists) believes that the nature of the services provided by Flight Service Controllers who operate the Nation's Flight Service option (safety of flight, emergency services, explanation of weather, explanation of air traffic procedures, etc.), demand that the Federal Government through the FAA continue to play a direct role in this critical area for the foreseeable future. We further believe that while establishing a dollar value for each of these services is difficult, the expertise and experience of the Flight Service controllers makes them a unique asset to the Nation's aviation system, and particularly to General Aviation.

As a union, we are responsible for furthering the goals of our members, and representing them to the FAA, to political bodies, and to other groups. We strive to accomplish this by trying to reduce the adverse impact of any actions of the FAA that are detrimental to our members either collectively or individually. By definition, that includes responding to the intentions of the FAA. Equally important is the goal of enhancing our members' interest through lobbying for a political climate that is beneficial to them and the public they serve. The service that we provide to the people of this country can be defined as providing for the safety of the airways for the flying public.

Over the past decade, the decision of the FAA to change to a structure of 61 the Automated Flight Service Stations instead of more than 300 smaller facilities has resulted in a reduction of services provided to our users. In many instances, services are more difficult to access by the public. In addition, we have largely lost the face-to-face interaction which was a hallmark of critical safety and service to the flying public.

For example, as a result of the loss of direct contact with the flying public, our service to Air Carrier operators has become very limited. Because of the limited services provided, and the inflexibility imposed by the present system, Air Carrier operators and larger commercial operators have chosen to obtain or provide these required services themselves.

In Alaska, Air Carriers get more services from the Flight Service system than in the lower Continental 48 and Hawaii because the FAA has not restricted the FSS system as it has in the lower 48 and Hawaii due to the special and unique needs of Alaska.

The FAA has and is continuing to personalize services to the users of our products. One of the original premises of the automated concept - and the reduction to 61 facilities - was an increase of efficiency. The concept in its present form has only marginally increased efficiency, but at a considerable cost: the automation concept has resulted in the removal of personalized service, and one-to-one accountability.

The public does not like the result as has been shown in numerous surveys and reports in aviation journals. There must be a concerted effort to reverse the process of anonymity. As computerized information becomes increasingly available, and as traffic continues to increase (both commercial and general) the need for close personal contact between the pilot and the Flight Service Controller will continue to grow. NAATS supports the return of personalized service for the users with an increase of efficiency. These two goals are not mutually exclusive!

The Union has had only limited success over the past years in getting the FAA to increase the stature or to recognize the importance of Flight Service Controllers. We have had more success in taking our plight directly to the people and to our elected officials. The users have clearly indicated that they see the functions that we provide as being important.

Duties

Flight Service responsibilities that have been articulated by the FAA (formally) and users (informally through experience) are as follows:

Flight Service Controllers currently provide pilot briefing services, en route communications, VFR and IFR search and rescue services, lost air-

craft and aircraft in unusual and/or emergency situations assistance, and ATC clearances. They originate and track NOTAM's, broadcast weather and NAS information, process IFR and VFR flight plans, take weather observations, issue airport advisories and traffic advisories in the vicinity of movement areas through the use of air/ground communications, perform customs notifications, monitor NAVAID's, sequence IFR traffic for centers, handle SVFR operations, and provide coordination between other air traffic facilities and airways facilities (AF), etc.

Responsibilities

It historically has been the responsibility of the Flight Service Controller to prepare a pilot for flight. Various functions have to be performed. The Flight Service Controller has, as a primary function, the goal of preparing a pilot to perform a particular flight, supporting that flight by updating various types of information, and performing other duties that the aviation community deems appropriate.

Pilots have to know the feasibility and the safety parameters of a particular flight. Is the weather conducive to the flight? Are NAVAID's available that the pilot will need? What particular ATC and FAA services will be required? What services are available to the pilot along his or her route of flight and at the destination? Is there a better or more efficient way to perform the flight?

We believe that in the future, our responsibilities should encompass everything that has to do with flight that is not directly provided by Flight Standards, or by tower/center personnel.

Structure

Facility size is, and will continue to be, irrelevant to the mission performed by our members for the people of this country. Nevertheless, it must be understood that a minimum number of personnel is required at all times, since we must operate in a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year environment.

Personnel currently filling the less desirable facilities need to have some incentive to remain at those facilities, rather than transferring to another. Since there is presently no incentive offered to staff these hard-to-staff facilities under the current grade, pay and work requirements, other solutions are required for effective service from a business perspective. Why not put the controllers where the public really has a need for them, and not just where the building to contain them exists? If the public determines that there is a need, then the personnel used to staff these needed facilities should be appropriately compensated and provided with appropriate working conditions.

As technology continues to develop it will be increasingly feasible to put people at locations where there is a significant general aviation interest. These could be "storefront" locations that are only open and staffed during times of anticipated use. These could be portable, and except for remoted frequencies, contain a full range of services, and a complete database just as if they were located at the parent facility. Any and all data that is available at one facility would be instantly available to any other controller. Local expertise or experience is valued by the users, and the information that can be provided to users based on that experience, is one of the most important commodities that we can provide.

Mission

The future mission of Flight Service will be to provide any and all relevant information needed, or as requested by a pilot, to successfully accomplish a safe and efficient flight. This will include information that is typically provided by large companies to their air crews. This should include hard copy information that has been interpolated for use for a particular flight parameter. Also included will be all types of flight following information (hazardous area reporting, etc.), and flight plans.

Flight Service Controllers will take a more active role in ensuring separation of aircraft under certain circumstances. This may include "owning" airspace for use during periods of IFR weather for expeditious SVFR operations. This may also include sequencing of IFR traffic for other control facilities. By doing this, airspace would be used more efficiently, and pilots would enjoy the benefits of that increased efficiency. In many instances, towers and centers (NATCA) have given up certain areas of control, and Flight Service should move into or include these areas as our own.

Mechanisms for Change

As technology develops for the aviation industry, Flight Service will continue to be the entity that converts or translates this technology into a usable format for pilots. This implies that the job complexity of the Flight Service Controller will of necessity increase.

Technology will also increase the available range of services that a Flight Service controller is able to provide. By using instantaneous communications with other facilities and controllers, the service provided to the public will be enhanced. The interpersonal relationship that was historically

available between Flight Service controllers and the public will need to be reestablished after having been allowed to deteriorate over the past few years. The current political climate allows us into areas that have long been closed to us by the FAA. When we as a Union take our arguments for continued involvement to the users, most often we have their support. Many times we have shown the users and Congress that we are available to give a valuable service to the people of this country at a very cost efficient price.

The FAA is allowing the numbers of bargaining unit members to decrease over time. This leaves more work to be performed by fewer people. We have traditionally shown that we are adaptable, and that we have been able to do more work with fewer resources. We have reached a manpower "bottom" however, and to continue to provide the quality that has come to be expected of us, we need a commitment from the agency to provide us with a pipeline of new people and adequate technology to actually provide the needed services to the public. When the FAA refuses to backfill personnel as attrition takes place, they are setting the stage for a self-fulfilling prophesy: demand will be reduced as the number of available Flight Service Controllers is reduced through attrition and retirement, because the public will not be able to contact the remaining Flight Service Controllers in a timely manner. And as demand decreases, the continuing policy of attrition will be spuriously justified.

Training

FSS controllers will need to enhance interpersonal skills with the goal of achieving zero dissatisfaction from the primary users. Training will be reestablished as a priority for Flight Service controllers. The goal of having a continuously well educated and motivated workforce diverse in abilities and able to embrace new duties and responsibilities with minimum difficulties will be realized.

Flight Service controllers will also be trained in teaching techniques. The goal will be to work with various user groups to train and educate pilots in the use of the NAS. This could include training students and new pilots in basic weather understanding. We could work in concert with the AOPA's mentor program so that pilots would have an understanding of FAA procedures and weather situations. Certain Flight Service controllers have expertise in areas of interest to the public, and the FAA should make this expertise available to those who request it. The goal would be to promote flying by training general aviation pilots. General aviation is the ultimate source of most commercial pilot training and is the backbone of aviation in this country.

Interaction with the Public

We should remove the name "automated" from flight service stations at some time in the near future. All facilities should provide a complete range of services. It would promote good public relations and show the public that once again, "service" is our middle name. We need to advertise our services to any who would use them. We are able to quickly address the needs of our users, with a minimum of bureaucratic delay of necessary changes. We should have as a goal the ability to address the needs of all users: general aviation, military, air taxi and small commercial operators, as well as air carriers. We have a dedicated, well trained and easily adaptable workforce that has a history and ethic of public service.

Conclusions.

We must always remember that we are people serving people. Technology is only a means to accomplish that task. Human interaction is the secret behind the safety record that we have had over the past years. For example, automated weather observations have a place, but they can never fully replace what a human sees and reports. Pilots always prefer information in the form of what an observer can actually see over cold, impersonal, incomplete mechanical reports.

The complexity of the work being performed by Flight Service Controllers is going to increase over time due to changes in technology, and what is required by the public. We do not know what equipment will be available in the future, but we must be able to use the latest and most efficient equipment to deliver the best possible service to the public.

If Flight Service Controllers are allowed to have the proper equipment, the training, and freedom from unnecessary regulation, we can compete successfully with any in the private sector who might wish to take over our functions. We can make Flight Service work for the people of this country.

Goals

1. Better educate our members on the importance of customer satisfaction; find a mechanism to insure that we are providing what the public wants to the greatest extent possible.

2. Find a mechanism to provide "continuing education" to our members. A highly educated and trained workforce can only be beneficial to the long term existence of our bargaining unit.

3. Find appropriate mechanisms to insure that there are new members coming into our bargaining unit. It is vital that we accomplish this task.

4. Find mechanisms and then use them to lobby to achieve goals that will ensure the long term existence of Flight Service.

5. Ensure that Flight Service Controllers are able to provide personalized service to our users. We must always be aware that we are "service providers." We do this in an area where it is difficult to measure a "dollar value" for the services that we provide. This does not make the services less important, but perhaps more important. It also means that the focus at all times must be on safety.

6. Insure that our members have the technology at their disposal with which to do their jobs. Only if we insure that this hardware and software are available will we be able to provide the services that the public wants from our members. In this era of rapid change in the manner that information is provided, it is vital that we "keep up" - in fact, we must be leaders in this endeavor in order to continue to provide the public with our most important product: safety.

Back to Table of Contents

MOU OF THE MONTH

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AIR TRAFFIC SPECIALISTS AND THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

This memorandum of understanding constitutes the agreement between the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the Air Traffic plan for the Prevention and Elimination of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. The Employer agrees to place a copy of this agreement in the Read and Initial (R&I) Binder at all facilities where bargaining unit employees are employed within 30 days of effective date of this agreement.

Section 1. The Parties agree that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in the workplace. All employees will be held accountable for any such misconduct in accordance with the agency's policy against sexual harassment. Prior to briefing employees on the Air Traffic Plan for the prevention and elimination of sexual harassment, the Air Traffic Manager and the facility representative will meet to discuss the plan. Managers and supervisors shall ensure that all bargaining unit employees are briefed on the plan. The Parties agree that field managers and supervisors are not experts in the area of sexual harassment or sex discrimination. Employees may contact their regional Civil Rights Staff for additional information.

Section 2. Upon receipt of a complaint of sexual harassment by a NAATS bargaining unit employee, facility management shall ensure prompt initiation of the actions identified in Section VIII, Handling Sexual Harassment Reports of the plan.

Section 3. Supervisors and managers shall only share information regarding complaints of sexual harassment with those agency employees who are involved in the complaint or its processing, or have knowledge of allegations contained in the complaint.

Section 4. The Employer agrees that no retaliation, in any form, shall be tolerated or permitted against a bargaining unit employee for filing a sexual harassment complaint.

Section 5. The Parties agree that facility management has the ultimate responsibility for eliminating and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Refusal by bargaining unit employees to confront offenders shall not excuse inaction by facility management provided management has been notified. Bargaining unit employees have no responsibility to confront employees or contractors who are engaging in sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior.

Section 6. Bargaining unit employees are free, at their option, to confront members of management and/or staff who are engaging in inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment. No retaliation of any sort shall be allowed against these employees.

Section 7. The Parties agree that how a bargaining unit employee is dressed or what an employee says does not constitute an excuse or provocation for sexual harassment. However, employees shall groom and attire themselves in an appropriate manner consistent with the provisions of Article 62 of the agreement.

Section 8. Nothing in the plan or this agreement precludes a bargaining unit employee from utilizing the resources of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the processing of his/her complaint.

Section 9. The Parties agree that the Union has a statutory and contractual interest in representing all employees in the bargaining unit. Therefore, it is agreed that the appropriate union representative shall be notified in advance and allowed to attend any interviews or settlement meetings between bargaining unit employees and management.

Section 10. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver of any union statutory or contractual right.

Back to Table of Contents

MOU EXPLANATION

by Wally Pike,
NAATS Chief Negotiator

Air Traffic Plan for the Prevention and Elimination of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Section 2. Facility management must act promptly when notified of a complaint.

Section 3. No one that isn't absolutely essential to the complaint should have any knowledge of it unless it is shared by the complainant.

Section 4. No NAATS member is to suffer any retaliation for filing a complaint.

Section 5. The fact that a NAATS bargaining unit member might choose not to confront an offender does not remove the Agency's obligation to provide a work place free of sexual harassment.

Section 6. If a bargaining unit member so chooses, he/she may confront any member of management or staff who, in the unit member's opinion, is engaging in either inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment. No retaliation against the unit member will be tolerated.

Section 7. Members of our bargaining unit are protected against sexual harassment regardless of how they dress or what they say.

Section 8. The EEOC is always available as a forum for complaints.

Section 9. This section is big. NAATS has the right to be present when any EEO interviews or settlement discussions are held between bargaining unit members and management. Even if the complainant doesn't request our presence we still have the right to be there to represent the bargaining unit during these discussions. I strongly urge all NAATS representatives to take advantage of this.

Back to Table of Contents

NTSB REPORT

by Dan Holodick,
NTSB Focal

I agree with all the regional reps that we MUST get training. Do your part, show your interest and put an official request through your training department, and show your concern about the issue to your Manager, and most importantly, to your FACREP and Regional Director.

A "BINOVC" if you will, Eastern Region has obtained a class slot for March, (Thanks Ron Maisel ), The New England Region, (Specifically BGR AFSS training dept.) is in the process of putting the request in for the next fiscal year. At the time of this writing, I have not heard any news from the BOD meeting, in reference to the training issue.

I am soliciting language for Article 82 for the " new and improved" contract, soon to be re-negotiated. When I get some feedback, ( soon I hope) I will compile your suggestions with mine and submit them to Mike McAnaw. Issues to think about, training, site participation, shadow training, NTSB HQ visit, etc.

For the people who are interested, the NTSB has a WEB page, its: http://www.ntsb.gov it has some good sections, check it out. I have been speaking with James Morin, from the NATCA Accident Group, he has given me information on a possible training session in New Mexico this Fall. I requested that he keep me informed as more information becomes available.

As promised, here is the list of Regional Accident Reps to date, not in any particular order: Jim Paris, Mike Hustak, Mike Miller, Chuck Kuennen, Steve Bernier, Jerome Miller, Vernon Cox Jr., Kimberly Lindsey, Jack Jadwin, Andy McClure, Mike Crain, Tim Jeffery, Marty Broward, Daniel Holodick.

If I left you out, forgive me, give me your name. I hope to hear from some different people, if you haven't contacted me, please drop me a line or phone call, my information is on the last page of the newsletter. So far, the only people I know of that have had Accident training are; Myself, (BGR) ; J. Miller (IPT) ; and this month T. Jeffery (AOO). Have I left anyone out?

After reading that last sentence, what a poor training success rate. The FAA has been looking past article 82 for nearly 4 years, or have they? Perhaps we ( after being trained) should just start showing up at the accident sites, and deal with it on a case by case basis. When I ' WAS ' notified by the regional com-center, ( on an accident that happened literally in BGR AFSSs' back yard), he suggested that I contact the IIC, (investigator in charge) to find out what I should do next. I proceeded to call the FSDO, but the Investigator had already left. I called the NTSB, identified who I was and who I represented, only to find out that they were also en route. The person explained to me that accidents are important occurrences and they would rather not have observers standing around.

This tells me that the NTSB, an organization that I highly respect , is not clear on what we want to accomplish. This shall be my second priority, training being first. I have sent a second request to the Hon. James Hall, Chairman, NTSB, and will let you know of the results.

In closing, the next time you get a chance, glance through the contract.....are there any other Articles that are not being honored in good faith?

Back to Table of Contents

In Brief...

VETERANS' PREFERENCE legislation is moving in the house, as the Civil Service Subcommittee adopted HR 240, designed to prevent agencies from engaging in so-called "designer RIFs". The bill would enhance VP protections for all civil service employees, and would give the MSPB new jurisdiction to hear complaints about alleged violations of VP.

THE FED'S ALAN GREENSPAN has endorsed a proposal to change the calculation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which some economists argue overstates the rate of inflation. Critics of the idea to change the CPI maintain that the real reason behind the attempt is to cut future increases in Social Security, retirement benefits, and federal employee pay levels so as to balance the budget sooner. Literally tens of billions of dollars are involved, so the political pressure is high to go along with the Fed. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has called for an independent commission to adjust the CPI. And at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Clinton has directed OMB to look into possible changes.

THE FLRA has established a new website to provide information about its decisions and procedures. Interested parties can find it at http://www.access.gpo/flra. Reminder: visit the NAATS site at www.naats.org.

Back to Table of Contents

CALENDAR NOTE

THE 1997 NAATS NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

Wednesday, October 29 & Thursday, October 30 at the new Monte Carlo Resort & Casino in LAS VEGAS. Reserve the date now! Please look for a special notice to your facilities for reservation details and agendas. Please note: There will be an additional day of training for facility representatives only on Tuesday, October 28.

Back to Table of Contents