National Association of Air Traffic Specialists

As this issue of NAATS News was being finalized, House and Senate conferees had just filed their report on H.R. 3675, legislation making appropriations in FY 1997 for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies. I am pleased to report that one of NAATS' primary legislative goals for this bill, restoration of $3 million cut by the House to fund Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves, was accomplished.

Restoration of this funding means that long-planned closures of non-automated flight service stations can proceed without concern that the FAA will be unable to fund moves for displaced controllers. In addition, this funding will provide important flexibility to the agency when it implements these moves.

The other goal sought by NAATS in this bill, retention of $500,000 in continuing funding for OASIS, was also achieved. This funding will allow continued development of OASIS and, when coupled with funds previously appropriated by Congress, initial acquisition of hardware, expected sometime in FY 1997 or FY 1998.

While Irv Woods and I have many people to thank for helping us ensure these twin victories, a special thank you must be given to Representative Jim Lightfoot (R-IA), a member of the House subcommittee. Representative Lightfoot's efforts to restore the House reduction in PCS funds and his support of the OASIS procurement were instrumental in ensuring NAATS' objectives were met.

The bill should be voted upon by both houses of Congress during the week of September 16. At this writing, an unrelated and non-germane amendment dealing with a child custody case, added by House Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), was the only controversial item in the bill. Although many on Capitol Hill were surprised and displeased by its inclusion in the bill, the amendment was finally accepted by the conferees. At this writing, it is not expected to pose an obstacle to final approval of the bill prior to signing by the President.

Other highlights from the bill include FAA Operations funding of $4.9 billion, Facilities and Equipment spending is set at $1.79 billion and airport improvement capped at $1.46 billion. Of the total funding for FAA Operations, more than $3.8 billion is available for Air Traffic.

Other aviation business pending as Congress rushed to adjournment included separate legislation to reform FAA, reauthorize its programs and, perhaps, extend user taxes. The Senate was set to vote by September 19 on a "catchall" bill including some elements of reform plus FAA program extensions, complementing measures already adopted by the House. Additionally, legislation reinstating airline ticket and aviation fuel taxes went into effect August 27 but was set to expire at the end of the year. Many industry observers predicted a White House proposal to impose a $225 per flight tax on business jets to be "dead on arrival" but several members of Congress, including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Wendell Ford (D-KY), the chairman and ranking Democrat, respectively, of the Senate's aviation subcommittee, had previously endorsed similar legislation.

As always, NAATS will continue to closely monitor and report to its members on relevant Congressional actions.

NAATS has achieved a major victory on behalf of one of its bargaining unit members.

This major accomplishment involved an employee at Terre Haute, Indiana, HUF AFSS and grievance is NA-GL-95-009. When I filled in for Bill Dolan as acting regional director, I had many opportunities to work with facilities representatives on grievances. Through many months of working with Ms. Diana Roney, HUF AFSS FacRep, NAATS was able to have career ladder promotions adjusted for Mr. Gregory Durbin, who was awarded a significant amount of back pay as a result.

The Agency had incorrectly promoted Mr. Durbin in 1992. After months of back and forth dialogue, the Agency and NAATS sat down with a pay specialist. The Agency was forced to agree with NAATS that Mr. Durbin was entitled to back pay and a settlement was drawn up.

The settlement made adjustments from the 1992 date, when the grievant was a 2150-05 step 2, through November, 1995, when he was awarded 2152-12 step 1. Mr. Durbin would like to keep the total amount private, but I will tell you it amounted to not just a few but many thousands of dollars. He and I appreciate Ms. Roney's hard work on this matter

As part of the agreement, Mr. Durbin received GS-12 while still a developmental. He had been able to train but the incorrect promotions delayed his training and potential to reach FPL status. It is a situation like this that motivates us all to be proud in what NAATS can do for us. Join the action - JOIN NAATS TODAY!

Many of us may have experienced a traumatic event or critical incident that has caused us and/or our co-workers to experience unusually strong emotional reactions which had the potential to interfere with our ability to function either at work or at home. These responses have manifested themselves as a result of what is termed Critical Incident Stress or CIS.

In recent years, much research has been devoted to Critical Incident Stress. The following is a very brief summary of (1) the types of siftiations that often canse CIS, (2) the signs and symptoms of CIS, and (3) strategies and interventions that are helpful to individuals coping with CIS.

A critical incident is an event that is extraordinary and may produce significant reactions. CIS is often the natural reaction of a normal person to an extreme situation. The following are some examples of critical incidents we can face:

- Aircraft accidents with loss of life

- acts of terrorism

- catastrophic natural events (earthquake, flood, hurricane, etc.)

- death or suicide of a co-worker

- threats of violence and or injury to co-workers on the job

CIS may manifest itself as a physical, cognitive, and or emotional response that may be experienced almost immediately - or may be delayed days, weeks, or months.

The Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) is an educational process designed (by means of group and individual discussions and counseling sessions) to minimize the impact of a critical incident on employees.

NAATS and the FAA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding this program (see accompanying box ) and is in the process now of identifying one person from each region to serve as CISD Peer Support members, who in conjunction with regional LAP program representatives and contract counselors, would be called upon to travel to affected facilities to provide employee debriefings should circumstances warrant. Peer Support Members will receive formalized training at the national level (early 1997) prior to assuming an active participative role and will be granted official time and expense for their services.

While previous CISD or counseling experience is not necessary albeit beneficial), interested persons should have common sense, integrity, credibility with co-workers, good listening skills, and a commitment to confidentiality. Abrupt, corrosive, domineering types need not apply!

To date, the following regions have yet to designate a CISD representative: AEA, ANE, and ASW. Please contact your Regional Director or myself if you're interested in serving, have any questions or would like supplemental information regarding this program.

1. The agency has established a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) Program which is designed to proactively manage the common disruptive physical, mental, and emotional factors than an employee may experienced after a critical incident (i.e., accidents/incidents, such as an aviation disaster with loss of life, the death of a co-worker, acts of terrorism, bomb threats, exposure to toxic materials, prolonged rescue or recovery operations, and natural disasters such as earth quakes and hurricanes). Upon request, an employee involve in witnessing a critical incident shall be relieved from operational duties as soon as feasible.

2. The agency's CISD Program is an educational process designed to minimize the impact of a critical incident on employees. It is not intended to evaluate employees in terms of gathering factual information about employee performance or to be a mechanism for psychological assessment.

3. The union will designate a bargaining unit employee to serve as a member of a CISD team. The union at the national level may designate up to three (3) bargaining unit employees top receive formal CISD training to be available for this purpose.

4. CISD training will be [provided to the union designees references in Sections 3 and 8 of this Memorandum on official time, if otherwise in a duty status, and shall entitle the participants to travel and per diem allowances. The agency agrees to adjust the schedule(s) of participants in order to allow them to participate in a duty status.

5. Whenever the agency determines to send out a CISD team, the union designee shall be relived as soon as operationally possible from his/her normal duties to proceed immediately to the scene. The agency shall adjust the union designee's schedule to allow for travel and participation in CISD activities. Official time, travel, and per diem expenses shall be authorized for the CISD team member.

6. The Principal Facility Representative or his/her designee will be notified a reasonable time in advance whenever employees will be required to attend mandatory critical incident stress debriefings.

7. When a determination is made to implement the formal CISD briefing, all affected employees will be notified and will be required to attend. Besides the CISD professional, only those employees whose attendance is required will be permitted to attend this briefing. Upon completion of the mandatory briefing, the CISD professional will notify the employees that a licensed counselor will be available for bargaining unit employees who desire additional CISD services. The use of EAP services will be provided in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 NAATS/FAA Agreement and applicable agency directives.

8. The union at the national level may designate one (1) Peer Support Team member per region. These employees work with their jurisdiction's EAP Manager to educate co-workers about normal reactions to stressful incidents, and are an informal resource for peers. Peer support teams do not replace professional counseling or the formal CISD program. If requested, bargaining unit employees shall only receive peer support from other bargaining unit employees.

9. The CISD Program shall be administered in accordance with applicable agency directives and this Memorandum.

(signed March 7, 1994)

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

This agreement is made and entered into by the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS or the Union) and the Federal Aviation Administration (the FAA or Agency) to resolve issues involving the augmentation and backup of Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS).

1. The Parties, at the regional level, will determine which AFSS's and FSS's are suitably sited to augment and backup ASOS equipment. It is agreed that due to the priority of the weather observation augmentation program these negotiations will be conducted in an expeditious manner.

2. The Parties agree that the following sites will begin augmentation and backup services on July 1, 1996: HON AFSS, COU AFSS, RDU AFSS, MCN AFSS, EKN AFSS, and MLC AFSS.

3. The Agency agrees that all AFWSS/FSS sites identified in #1 will be equipped to provide augmentation and backup services at the service level identified under the agencies ASOS service standard levels.

4. It is agreed by the parties that the facility is suitably located on the airport the agency may agree to install Operator Interface Devices at all AFSS/FSS locations classified as Automated Service Level D providing the AFSS/FSS the means to augment and backup the ASOS.

5. The Parties agree to review ASOS service standard levels annually. This review will be in conjunction with the FAA/Industry annual review.

6. The Agency agrees that all locations having both an ATCT and an AFSS/FSS the augmentation and backup of ASOS may be performed at the AFSS/FSS facility, if it is found to be suitably sited on the airport (#1 above). If the ACTC is a contract facility and as a part of that contract the tower performs ASOS backup and augmentation, the AFSS/FSS may perform this function during the hours the tower is closed.

7. NAATS agrees to utilize the training program previously agreed to with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) pending review of the program by NAATS. The Parties agree to jointly determine if any changes are needed.

8. This agreement is subject to change only by mutual consent of the parties.

(signed June 28, 1996).

MOU ANALYSIS

1. The NAATS Regional Director and his/her counterpart shall review each AFSS/FSS's physical location and determine if it meets requirements for taking the airports weather observations.

2. Self Explanatory. Please note: This was the agency's language. They insisted that these facilities must begin augmenting ASOS by this date. I understand that they are now reneging on this agreement. Although I'm not surprised at this, I will be following up.

3. All facilities identified to perform ASOS augmentation duties will have the proper equipment installed at the AFSS/FSS. Please note: THIS DOES NOT MEAN PERFORM THE DUTIES FROM THE ATCT LOCATION! Please notify me immediately if the agency tries to get you to back up ASOS from any location other than the AFSS/FSS. They are attempting to do this at Juneau and Kenai, AK and also at Williamsport, PA.

4. Service level D is a stand alone ASOS with no augmentation required. If the facility is identified as suitably sited in #1 above and it is a service level D location, the installation of Operator Interface Devices can, and should be, negotiated.

5. Self Explanatory.

6. If this occurs it is to be accomplished at the AFSS/FSS, not at the tower.

7. Self Explanatory - The training program is under review. I would appreciate any input from those of you that have received this training.

8. Self Explanatory.

Section 1. This Memorandum of Understanding represents the results of negotiations between the parties arising from the implementation of FAA Order 7930.2F Notices to Airmen. Within 30 days of its effective date, the employer agrees to place a copy of this agreement in the read and initial (R&I) Binders at all facilities where NAATS bargaining unit members are employed

Section 2. Bargaining unit specialists are responsible for the duties listed in Paragraph 3-1-2. The Parties recognize that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the currency of NOTAMs lies with the issuers. However, there may be times when NAATS bargaining unit members must contact the issuers to determine currency.

Section 3. NOTAMs will be logged in accordance with Paragraph 3-1-3. The Parties agree that NOTAM L's do not require a separate accountability log, but the Parties at the local level may agree to maintain separate NOTAM accountability logs.

Section 4. The Employer agrees that bargaining unit members will be briefed on the impact of the order before they are held responsible for applying it.

Section 5. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver of any union or management statutory or contractual right.

DATED 8/15/96

MOU ANALYSIS

This MOU concerns FAA Order 7930.2F, Notice to Airmen

Section 1. Self-explanatory

Section 2. This issuer of the NOTAM, not a bargaining unit member, has the responsibility to ensure that the NOTAM is current. This Section eliminates the need for routine facility procedures that require bargaining unit members to call NOTAM issuers to ask if their NOTAM(s) is (are) still current.

Section 3. Facilities are not required to maintain NOTAM L accountability logs. Facility managers and Facreps may jointly agree to maintain these logs if they determine they're necessary

Section 4. Our bargaining unit members cannot be held responsible for this Order unless they've been briefed on it by facility management.

Section 5. We didn't waive anything.

As you undoubtedly have been hearing, the EFAS/CWSU issue is not without controversy. From the Union's perspective, the concern centers mostly around the effects on our bargaining unit and customers with respect to any national program implementation of a successful test. You may also have heard there are groups generally opposed to the substance of the concept.

Over the past few months much has been written concerning the FAA's feasibility study, mainly from the National Transportation Safety Board and some groups speaking for employees of the National Weather Service, including their Union. I certainly understand the motive of these groups' focus on the potential replacement of their employees, and of the NTSB's safety posture. However, their rhetoric is based on misleading information and begs correction.

I have read with shock the characterizations of our EFAS workforce as little more than "readers" of National Weather Service products. Having worked Flight Watch at two facilities for several years, I can attest that few things are read to pilots. Usually, these are items specifically requested read verbatim by the pilot, such as current SA's and terminal forecasts, and those items mandated by the FAA, such as textual Aviation Weather Hazards. The vast majority of our interaction with pilots concerns summarization of all available weather data, including our experiences, into a meaningful weather avoidance plan. This, in the case of pilots caught within or facing areas of existing thunderstorms, involves quick mental deductions of movements of aircraft and storms to project avoidance paths and escape routes. As often occurs with rapid thunderstorm development, this service can snowball into an almost unmanageable situation, given a limited EFAS staff and the enormous increase in demand placed upon Flight Watch during such weather events.

Obviously, in this scenario a generalized, averaged and CYA forecast product is of little use in getting a pilot out of imminent danger. While it is true that much of Flight Service's weather data comes from the NEWS, it is likewise a fact that we are increasingly dependent on other sources for our weather information. Unreliable machines are now taking over many services that the public once counted on for being accurate. Gone are our live weather radar displays, replaced by computerized exaggerated composites supplied by commercial vendor. (estimates of what and where weather was a few minutes ago at best.)

Truly, Flight Service personnel are not weather readers. In the matter of hazard avoidance and effect of aircraft, they are, as a group, the most knowledgeable aviation weather consultants in the world. In a recent letter sent to NATCA President Barry Krasner, the President of the NWS Union complained that since FAA had identified the Houston Center test as a possibility, the EFAS people at Conroe AFSS had become more "assertive" in notifying the Houston CWSU that existing radar echoes in their area might warrant issuance of Center Weather Advisories. The implication here it seems is "who are these people to tell our degreed meteorologists what to do?" If so, I can understand his over sensitivity, given the current defensive posture CWSU is in. If this truly is happening at Houston, I feel it only fair to argue that our Conroe EFAS personnel are not using the same state-of-the-art radar and satellite equipment supplied to the meteorologists at the enroute centers, nor have they been properly trained on the unreliability of the inferior equipment forced upon EFAS. Also, this reported assertiveness is not a new phenomenon. EFAS specialists everywhere have been offering opinions to and requesting product updates from CWSU for many years.

For it is aviation safety that is behind those conversations, and not some delusion of grandeur, as one might surmise from reading the letter to Krasner.

These naysayers offer much praise of those who hold a college degree in meteorology. Certainly, for the National Weather Service's need, this is desirable. Long ago, some of my NWS acquaintances informed me that aviation is not now, nor was ever the main focus of the National Weather Service. Their chief concern is with such products as public storm and temperature warnings, forecasting for agricultural interests, and climatological record keeping. Within these areas, they are the undisputed experts. To my knowledge, however, their college degrees did not prepare them for dealing with the effect of weather on the air traffic system or on aircraft components or structure. I suppose that what forecasters have learned in these areas has been picked up over their time spent working with FAA organizations, not in philosophical college classes. Ironically, it was one of my NWS instructors at Flight Watch school that when asked of the origin, told me that Flight Watch forecasting. The fact remains that aviation weather avoidance is a technical reality, rather than a philosophical study. Also, no one deals more frequently and with more collective experience with real time aviation weather hazards than Flight Service Station professionals.

Can Flight Watch do the job? Yes. I have no doubt. Should we? Maybe. Yet maybe not, if in fact it is the Agency's plan to use this project as a first step to AFSS consolidations and workforce downsizing. Would not this scenario result in the shutting out of the system those pilots who do not yet need Flight Watch or CWSU services, because they are still on the ground trying to get a quality preflight briefing from machines?