WHEATON, MD--October 11, 1996. Yesterday morning's failure of the Federal Aviation Administration's weather dissemination and flight plan processing computer network has prompted a national organization to call on the FAA to take immediate steps to replace the old system with a new one already on the drawing boards. The National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS) is asking the FAA to move forward on a long-delayed program to replace the dated equipment. NAATS is the organization representing FAA's flight service controller workforce.

At 5:20 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on the morning of October 10, the FAA's antiquated Model 1 Full Capacity (M1FC) computer system experienced a nationwide failure. The M1FC system is the basis for the operation of the nation's flight service system. It includes computer systems at 61 facilities, linked to a national data base. Initial reports indicated that the system, designed in the late 1970's and incorporating monochrome video terminals linked by slow telecommunications equipment, suffered total failure following a routine database update. As a result, none of the nation's 61 Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSS's) were able to provide weather data, navigation facility status and notice to airman (NOTAM) information to thousands of pilots across the country. In turn, the flights planned by these pilots were either delayed and/or forced to operate with incomplete aeronautical information.

One user in particular merits mention. At approximately 7:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, a crewmember of Air Force Two - the official aircraft of the Vice President of the United States - called the AFSS in St. Petersburg, FL to file a flight plan from St. Petersburg to Knoxville, TN. The Vice President was preparing to depart St. Petersburg after his debate with GOP nominee Jack Kemp the night before. Because the M1FC system was inoperative, special handling was required to process this flight plan.

NAATS President Michael McAnaw stated he was on duty at Seattle, WA's AFSS that morning. "It put me back to 1978, tearing paper off the teletype." He later contacted Ron Morgan, FAA's director of the Air Traffic Service, demanding an immediate explanation for the failure. In his conversation, McAnaw reiterated NAATS' support for the new OASIS program, designed to replace the antiquated M1FC system and bring the Flight Service network into the 21st century with the latest available computer and communications technology. While Congress has appropriated funds for this critical project, the FAA has yet to formally announce that the program will proceed. FAA's delays on OASIS come even after the agency in April, 1996 designated it one of three procurements to receive expedited treatment under new, streamlined acquisition procedures.

NAATS Executive Director Gary Simms noted in an interview with industry newsletter Aviation Daily that approval for OASIS may be given at an FAA procurement meeting currently scheduled for December 16. He added that "OASIS seems to be a poster child for the FAA's new procurement authority, and we are getting every indication that the FAA wants to make this a winner."

Last-minute fights among Senators regarding a labor law amendment benefitting Federal Express delayed but failed to prevent Congressional action on a comprehensive bill making reforms to FAA's structure and extending its programs. Congress barely completed its efforts on the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 before adjourning October 4 until January, 1997, making it one of the last measures approved by Congress and forwarded to the White House. President Clinton signed the bill into law October 9. Among the many bill's provisions are labor protections guaranteeing the rights of NAATS and other employee bargaining units to negotiate with FAA on personnel reform.

The delay stemmed from a "technical correction" sought by Federal Express to existing laws regulating air carriers and trucking companies. The provision was added to the bill at the last minute by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) but immediately drew strong opposition. After the House narrowly passed the bill, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Paul Simon (D-IL), among others, mounted a filibuster for several days until an agreement could be reached between themselves and FedEx supporters, including Hollings and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate's Subcommittee on Aviation.

With the exception of aviation tax extensions, the final bill incorporates almost every major aviation policy initiative considered by Congress in 1995 and 1996. In addition, it fundamentally changes FAA's charter from promoting both the aviation industry and aviation safety to emphasize the latter. Many initiatives had been passed by the House much earlier in the year but languished in the Senate as a result of disagreements on FAA funding proposals. They include continuing FAA reform, new airport security measures, airport privatization, exchanging pilot training and employment information among carriers, preventing underage pilots from attempting to set records and implementing overflight user fees on foreign air carriers.

In particular, insuring the negotiability of FAA's ongoing personnel reform was a priority for NAATS. The final provisions were incorporated into a section of the bill known as the Air Traffic Management System Performance Improvement Act of 1996 and includes these provisions as well as other protections. Specifically, the bill states:

The Administrator shall negotiate with the exclusive bargaining representatives of employees of the Administration certified under Section 7111 of title 5 and consult with other employees...

EMPLOYEE PROTECTIONS.--Until July 1, 1999, basic wages (including locality pay) and operational differential pay provided employees of the Administration shall not be involuntarily adversely affected by reason of the enactment of this section, except for unacceptable performance or by reason of a reduction in force or reorganization or by agreement between the [FAA] and the affected employees' exclusive bargaining representative.

LABOR-MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS--Except as otherwise provided by this title, all labor-management agreements covering employees of the Administration that are in effect on the effective date of the Air Traffic Management System Performance Improvement Act of 1996 shall remain in effect until their normal expiration date, unless the Administrator and the exclusive bargaining representative agree to the contrary.

NAATS has been working long and hard to see these provisions enacted in reform legislation and we are extremely pleased Congress saw fit to retain them in the final bill.

But, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 is really several initiatives rolled into one. In one way or another, it addresses almost every function of FAA and includes Congress' response to several high-profile issues, including airport security, exchange of pilot training and employment records and record attempts by underage pilots. Following are the bill's major highlights:

1. FAA programs and the agency spending authority were extended through 1998, including airport development, facilities and equipment purchases and overall operations. Agency research was extended for one year, through 1997. Additional security personnel and aircraft inspectors were added to FAA's personnel roster, responding to events surrounding ValuJet and the TWA 800 tragedy.

2. Airport funding was modified to expand the state block grant program from seven states in 1996 to nine by 1998. The airport funding formula was simplified while increasing the amount of funds available to the remaining different categories. A new pilot program allows five airports, including one general aviation facility, to be privatized by sale or long-term leasing. DOT and a majority of major carriers must agree on the proposed privatization agreements.

3. Ongoing FAA reform was continued, allowing FAA more autonomy from DOT but stopping short of making the agency independent. A Management Advisory Council, comprised of industry representatives, was established to advise the administrator on ways to improve FAA. Also, a National Civil Aviation Review Commission will study various FAA funding and safety issues, including recommendations on new aviation user fees and whether the Airport and Airway Trust Fund should be removed from consideration as part of the federal budget. One new user fee was included in the bill--overflight fees for foreign carriers who use ATC services but do not land or takeoff from a US facility.

4. Aviation security also received attention, with requirements for criminal history checks for personnel screening luggage as well as mandating that FAA certify airport security companies and study new weapon and explosive detection technologies. These provisions incorporate the initial recommendations of a new White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, chaired by Vice President Al Gore.

5. FAA's "dual mandate," dating from the 1950s, to promote both aviation safety and the aviation industry, was eliminated in favor of stressing safety.

6. Pilot record sharing was mandated to help ensure airlines receive accurate information on pilots they plan to hire from previous employers. The prospective employer must obtain training, performance and other employee records before hiring new pilots.

7. Pilots attempting record-setting flights must be certified, a response to the tragedy resulting in the April deaths of seven-yr-old Jessica Dubroff, her father and her flight instructor as she attempted to become the youngest person to fly across the US.

8. Crash victims' families will look to the NTSB as the lead federal agency responsible after an airline tragedy. Airlines must submit to DOT their plans to address families' needs after an accident. Also, a NTSB-selected non-profit organization will serve as the focal point for information and coordinating the emotional care and support of families.

Even though this measure incorporated a substantial number of initiatives, Congress failed to include an extention of aviation users taxes. This means the existing taxes will expire on December 31. This issue will resurface in the 105th Congress, scheduled to convene the first week of January.

VOTE!

The need to participate in the democratic electoral process is a right - and an obligation. Readers of NAATS NEWS, who out of a sense of responsibility participate in NAATS, probably vote in national and local elections in percentages far in excess of the 40 or 50% of the electorate as a whole. I won't demean the members by urging them to get out and express their choice for President, Senate, Congress, and state and local offices.

But let me ask all NAATS members to do more than just vote. Encourage your family, coworkers, friends and neighbors to get out and vote. Get active in a campaign, be it local, statewide or national. More than 150 NAATS members participate in the NAATS PAC on a biweekly basis, and these folks often get involved in local campaigns.

This year, issues at the national level are critical for union members, workers in general, and FAA employees in particular. The rights of union members to organize, the economic well being of working families, and the future of Flight Service may be at stake in this election.

Who controls the Senate may be an issue of no particular concern, and the same may be true with the House of Representatives, but few can doubt that there is a major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. While both parties seem to be trying to head towards the political center, major differences remain between the parties. You need to evaluate these differences and make your own choice.

The last time I made comments about political sides, I was on the recieving end of some negative comments who claimed that I demeaned conservatives by stressing the importance of the Labor Movement in the historical progress workers made through most of this century. Just as Clinton and Dole can shake hands and respect each other while recognizing their differences, we all need to see that all NAATS members share the same goals: a secure future, satisfying work, protection for the family, a comfortable retirement, and a safe and secure flying environment for our customers. We may differ on how to reach those goals. So consider what the candidates are offering, and make your choice. But make sure you choose.

IMPASSE PROCEDURES

Events continue to move briskly on the LMR front in dealing with the FAA. With reform issues and with continuing negotiations, questions arise from the membership as to what procedures or avenues are available for NAATS in dealing with Impasses in negotiations.

In trying to explain the differences in a recent training class in Reno, I may have confused the matter further. I shall now try to explain the procedures both under existing bargaining and on reform issues as dictated by new legislation.

Normal everyday issues in LMR stay the same. That is at the local level Article 9 of the contract applies. Local FAC/REP cannot reach agreement on an issue they shall elevate the negotiation to their respective Regional Director for processing at the Regional level. If the Regional Director cannot reach agreement at the Regional level on the issue they shall elevate the issue to the national level for processing.

If at the national level agreement cannot to reached the Union shall utilize the Federal service Impasse Panel (FSIP) process to attain agreement. Issue is solved as has been the case for years. Nothing has changed.

When dealing with the new personnel reform issues being developed in the FAA things are slightly different. Wally Pike and the National office of NAATS has this responsibility. Wally presently is involved in negotiations over these issues. He is being assisted by members of the national office as well as BOD members on an issue by issue basis. PRIBS as the proposals in reform are called are constantly being developed by the FAA under direction of Congress to establish a new Federal Personnel System for the FAA.

Under legislation passed by Congress in October 1996, Impasse between the Unions and the FAA over reform issues shall be subject to review by Congress. On Reform issues only Congress shall decide the issue after submission of position by the Union and the FAA. The national office will take care of these procedures on Reform.

I hope this will eliminate any confusion over the differences in the old procedures and the new Reform procedures. As always if you need further guidance call your Regional Director or the national Office and they will be glad to assist you.

FIRST AID IS IMPORTANT

Workers are injured on the job everyday. These injuries cost American businesses billions of dollars a year and in 1994, cost society $120.7 billion. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5,307 people died from accidental causes on-the-job in 1994, a five percent increase from the previous year. More than 3.5 million people suffered disabling work injuries. "Aside from tragic cost in human suffering to victims and their families, the costs of workplace accidents in dollars are staggering," said Jerry Scannell, president of the National Safety Council. "The total cost is equal to the combined 1994 profits of the 50 targest corporations in Arnerica." Each death costs $790,000 and each injury $29,000. Motor vehicle accidents were the leading cause of workplace deaths in 1994. Overexertion was the leading cause of non-fatal injuries, with injuries to the back being the most common. "Businesses can honor workers everyday by making a commitment to a safe workplace," said Scannell. "The National Safety Council is calling on every employer to provide a safe and healthy work environment for its employees."

OSHA requires that businesses provide first-aid training to employees based on expected first-aid needs. Moreover, first-aid training demonstrates that an employer cares about its employee's health. It also makes sense financially to empower employees to use first-aid to prevent injuries from worsening; it enables victims to return to work earlier.

Choose Your Type of Training

Businesses have many options for first-aid and CPR training. The National Safety Council's First-Aid Institute provides training courses for employees as well as instructor-development courses that teach individuals to train others

Decide Which Employees to Train

Many experts believe all employees should know how to provide first-aid and CPR to ensure that help is always at hand At a minimum, each department or work facility should have a first responder available at all times. Businesses should consider the distance of a worksite from emergency services when they determine how many employees to train.

Provide Custom-fit Classes in Retraining

Courses should emphasize techniques to respond to specific tasks such as CPR. All courses should include hands-on practice so employees will retain skills and be able to apply them in a crisis. At minimum, employees should be certified once a year to perform CPR and once every three years to perform first-aid.

On September 17-18 it was my privilege to go to CMD to speak with the Southern Region Partnership pairs, the SO Region NFP Coordinators, NAATS SO Regional Director Craig Campbell and ASO-501 Bill Peacock. I want to express my appreciation for their invitation and the opportunity to interact with them on their concerns.

All of the questions were good but I want to thank BNA Facrep Mike Ramsey in particular for his pertinent and timely questions regarding our bargaining unit staffing levels. Mike's comments and questions provide the opportunity for me to explain our action plan. As I said at CMD, staffing is our number one national concern. It's also linked to our goal of finally achieving the safety classification that will ensure our bargaining unit numbers in the future.

It's obvious that if current trend continue we'll lose a considerable number of our bargaining unit in the next five years. While estimates vary as to the exact number, we do know that our losses will be significant if some action isn't taken immediately. NAATS Executive Gary Simms is working with our Congressional Liaisons Irv Woods and Jeb Burnside to develop a congressional plan that will address both the staffing and safety classification concerns.

At our September business meeting NAATS President Mike McAnaw and I met with AT-1 Ron Morgan to request Agency support for these issues. The Agency is researching our request and will respond to us at our next meeting. It's our hope that they will join us in seeking congressional approval.

We intend to continue our efforts until we reach our goals. We'll keep you advised of our progress and any help you can provide. We fully realize the seriousness of the situation and your continued support is very much appreciated and essential. Please feel free to contact your regional representatives, Mac or me with your questions or concerns.

Again, I want to thank SO Regional Director Craig Campbell and our Southern Region members for their CMD invitation.

Election `96 and Your PAC

Thanks to those 152 NAA'fS members who reqularly contribute to NAATS PAC (political action committee) through the payroll deduction program. This slot, which was made available two years ago, has been critical to NAATS FAG's success in raising adequate funds to help re-elect Members of Congress who have been supportive, and these funds greatly supplement the NAATS lobbying operation. These voluntary FAG contributions are needed since Federal Election laws strictly prohibit corporate or union funds going to federal candidates.

Additionally, we all owe a special thanks NAATS PAC big contributors: 16 members who give at an annual rate of $260 to the PAC and one member, who gives $20 per pay period, for a $520 annual total. Sometime after we have received their permission, they will be publicly identified and commended.

The November 5th elections are less than a month away, and the bulk of NAATS PAC funds have been distributed for this election cycle. Giving out money isn't easy, and it is very time-consuming, as we have about 100 requests a month during the busy season. Most requests come in the form of written, large distribution, invitations to "fundraisers," though I am often called by candidates or Members of Congress who know me, or have worked closely with NAATS. I've learned to put up a strong resistance to arm-twisting, applying the same criteria to the all candidates' requests. In consultation with Jeb Burnside, Gary Simms or appropriate Board members, we ask ourselves, "is the contribution in the bargaining unit's best interest?" If so, we try to contribute.

Usually our main lobbying and PAC contribution activities are focused on Flight Service funding and operations issues, what I will call "aviation issues." This year our lobbying efforts have been dominated by the restoration of Chapter 71, "negotiability" and other "union issues." The expansion of our lobbying responsibilities have likewise increased our PAC activities to cover some members of Congress we don't normally consider.

NAATS PAC decisions are not based on party affiliation. While we make ne specific effort to do so, contributions to Democrats and Republicans have historically remained very balanced. NAATS PAC focuses on re-electing people with whom we have had overall success working with on our legislative issues. There isn't a "litmus test," we don't care about the AFL-CIO, AOPA, NATCA, NRA, or any other organizations' lists or ratings. Our interest is NAATS' members' interest.

This election cycle we are contributing to dozens of U.S. house and Senate races. Most are for incumbents re-election or House members making Senate bids. We have also targeted for defeat some selected, especially bad incumbents, and will also be involved in at least one open seat race. The selection process for non-incumbents has involved face--to-face discussions with these challengers to develop a sense of whether, if elected, they will be someone we can work with to protect aviation safety and our your employee rights. NAATS PAC is small, compared to most other PACs, so we can only afford to contribute to a few good candidates, who understand or are willing to learn about issues of our members.

To those of you who contribute to NAATS PAC "This is your PAC. Gary, Jeb and I work for you to see that you yet your money's worth." I urge you to encourage, cajole, or , in some fashion get more of your fellow bargaining units members to contribute and share the burden. If we got the penetration up to 30-40%, we could do with smaller individual contributions and still be effective. Like NAATS membership itself, the PAC is a little like an "insurance premium" giving some protection against downsizing, unemployment or under-employment.

In closing, I urge you to go out and work for or against candidates as you see fit. Two years ago you were "Un-hatched." Do something with your right to vote. Absentee ballots should be obtained immediately if you might not be in your home area on election day.

This is a third generation workgroup that has evolved over the past year from the initial Flight Service Stations Issues Workgroup. That group concluded that facility consolidations were not viable at the time, but depending on technological advances, some consolidations of facilities and/or functions could be viable in the future. Furthermore, that except for Inflight, the government need not necessarily provide services. The Agency approved the concept around December of last year, and established a follow-on group to mold the flight services architecture of the future.

There was much discussion in this second group about privatization, ranging from partial to complete, and other ways of contracting out flight services. After repeated warnings from NAATS that by continuing to discuss privatization the workgroup clearly was working outside its charter, we withdrew participation in the workgroup on March 15, and advised the Agency we could not buy into the plan and reserved bargaining rights. The outcome of this group was to encourage pilot self-reliance, de-emphasize one-on-one briefings, and to identify new technologies to serve the flying community in a shrinking AFSS workforce. The Administrator approved the notion in late Spring.

In June of this year, AAT-1 Bill Jeffers (now retired) discussed with NAATS CEO Wally Pike a further follow-on activity that would soon begin. We decided that we would again attempt to participate, to iron out our differences with the Agency, and to bring safe, responsible options back into the deliberations. The new workgroup held its initial meeting in Washington, D.C. the week of September 23, 1996. The NAATS Representatives are Ron Dawson, Southwest Region and Craig Campbell, Southern Region

This meeting consisted largely of bringing new participants up to speed with the background and of identifying data gathering assignments to the group to formulate ideas and decisions when the group next meets in early December. Although the group waited nearly three months to begin its work, there now is a great rush to come to conclusion. This is because of a December 15 deadline imposed on the group tied to the OASIS acquisition. It seems that by that date, the Agency must identify how many workstations to procure, for how many facilities, and where the facilities will be.

The likely decisions to come out of this group are wide-sweeping. Along with the general theme of facility consolidations, particularly hard to staff locations, the group is studying the feasibility of consolidating and realigning the in-flight functions with ARTCC boundaries. The obvious implication here is that some facilities will lose their Inflight positions, thereby reducing their staffing requirements. Over time, normal attrition will take its toll, creating pressure to part-time facilities without Inflight and transfer calls to larger facilities.

The group is also looking at additional outsourcing of Preflight through the government sponsorship (funding) of kiosk-type machines. These are like a bank automated teller machine (ATM). Other factors that the group is analyzing are Flight Watch locations, building cost, size and maintenance considerations, an internet-type common flight services network, nationally shared personnel and telecommuting.

Possibly trying to speed up the process and to reduce resistance, the group is operating conceptually with several assumptions. These are:

1. Politics are not a consideration (at all levels)
2. 61 AFSS's not viable
3. M1FC does not meet our needs
4. Current ICSS limits consideration
5. Reduced resources - people and dollars
6. Technology enhancements (lead to reduced staffing requirements)
7. More self-reliant pilots
8. One-on-one FSS provided services will continue to decrease
9. Near term - FSS staffing 3000
10. Reorganization (small "r") impact unknown

The stated thresholds for operational deployment of these concepts are incremental. It may be acknowledged by the group that little can be done in the near term, given our current systems (M1FC and ICSS) are at the end of their life-cycles. No dates are assigned to the thresholds. They are event driven. Early analysis by the group seems to point toward the theory that with the deployment of OASIS, expanded capabilities for consolidation will occur, and that the ICSS replacement system will likely allow full realization of their downsizing dream.

The initial phases of NFP Partnership Training have been completed in all Automated Flight Service Stations. Training was being completed in some facilities as late as September due to the rampant rumors that funding for FY97 would be cut.

We are confident that there will be continued funding for FY97. The NFP National Partnership Council will discuss funding during their October Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. The members of the council representing NAATS are Mike McAnaw, Ron Dawson, Kurt Comisky, and Ron Maisel.

Plans for FY97 should include follow-up training and evaluations. Facilities that are encountering difficulties should seek the assistance of their Regional Gatekeepers and Coordinators to move forward.

A cadre facilitator course conducted for all NFP Regional Coordinators during our June Conference should be coming to field facilities during FY97. CMD has developed a course, "Managing Partnership Realities." The course is designed to assist gatekeepers who have been operating together, assess the effectiveness of their partnership and determine what has helped or hindered partnership efforts. The course is meant to increase gatekeepers' tools for ongoing partnership maintenance and enhancement. We will be working to secure classes for our gatekeepers. Funding for these classes will be the key issue.

Partnership is not an easy road. It is not void of detours or roadblocks. It is a method of utilizing the talents of those members who pay our dues and keep our option alive and well.

Terry Lankford and Andrea Chay are representing NAATS for the METAR/TAF workgroup. We have been soliciting input from the membership and bargaining unit on any problems experienced with METAR/TAF, and thus far have been in the data collection mode. We are attempting to schedule a meeting with our FAA counterparts for sometime in October or November to discuss our problems. Please send your complaints/suggestions to either me at CXO AFSS fax 409 756-4722, or Terry Lankford at OAK AFSS. He has e-mail and you computer literate types can e-mail him at [email protected] - I am not that computer literate yet!!

The Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) is an FAA/Aviation Industry-Users organization chartered in 1975 by the FAA Administrator. We have 16 member organizations: ALPA, AOPA, EAA, APA (American Pilots Assoc.), ATA (Air Transport Assoc.), HAI (Helicopters Assoc. lnt'l), ATCA, NASA ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System), Army, Navy, Air Force, NBAA, (Nat'l Business Aircraft Assoc.), SWAPA (Southwest Pilots Assoc.), NATCA and NAATS plus the FAA with representatives from Air Traffic Operations and Flight Standards. The committee is a forum for the discussion of air traffic procedures in use in the National Airspace System.

Committee members bring in problems experienced by their members while using the NAS. Topics covered in the past have included wake turbulence, separation minima, the NOTAM system, laser light beams flashing cockpit members in the eyes, etc. While most of the users' problems deal with control instructions from centers and towers, I am the resident expert on NOTAMS, weather observations, flight plans, and anything else to do with FSS. We request information from the FAA people at headquarters and then based on information received, craft recommendations for the FAA to act on. Many of our recommendations result in changes to the Air Traffic handbooks and the AIM, plus Air Traffic Bulletins have been written in response to our recommendations. We meet quarterly, twice per year in DC at headquarters, and twice at various locations across the country.

I solicit input from any of the bargaining unit members for problems in procedures on a national level that you would like to fixed, or implemented. Steve Bernier from BTV AFSS is now my alternate representative to ATPAC in case I am unable to attend a meeting.

Due to the contributions of more than 150 NAATS members, the NAATS Political Action Committee will collect in excess of $18,000 in 1996. These funds are used - exclusively - for donations to political candidates, in primary and regular election campaigns for federal office. Decisions are made by a consensus of the Executive Director and the legislative staff, under the general guidance of the Board.

Contributions are made to candidates without regard to political affiliation, and contributions to Republicans are roughly equal to those made to Democratic candidates. The major criteria for PAC donations are the candidates' positions on issues vital to NAATS: particularly regarding support for NAATS' legislative initiatives such as the restoration of Chapter 71, OASIS, staffing for Flight Service, and related budget and reauthorization issues. Individuals who serve (or may serve) in leadership positions on key committees (in the majority or in the minority) affecting FAA authorization and budget, in both the House and the Senate, are more likely to receive NAATS PAC funding.

Because our funds are relatively limited, we tend to focus more on House races than on the Senate races, where our money may mean more to the individual's chances of success. Similarly, we have a predilection for grants to candidates in smaller states, where the money is more important, relatively, because the costs in the race are smaller than in larger, more metropolitan states where media purchases become a major part of the costly campaigns in those states.

Another criterion for NAATS PAC awards is the extent to which the candidate supports issues of importance to Federal employees - retirement and pay issues, health care, and etc.

Finally, NAATS PAC from time to time takes more direct action, such as targeted mailings to members who live in hotly contested districts where a get out the vote campaign may be decisive.

This bulletin is provided to you in an attempt to bring everyone up to the current status of the Flight Service Station Pay Work-group and what we can expect to see in the future.

In July, an Air Traffic Service (ATS) team spent time at CMD developing a New Pay Charter. It established parameters and rules we were supposed to uphold in developing our respective pay systems within the ATS Line of Business (LOB). This was forwarded to the Administrator for his quick approval and we anticipated beginning work as early as late August. However the charter has never been signed and progress on our new pay system has ground to a halt.

The most likely explanation for this turn of events is that we are all waiting to see what the NATCA Reclassification Pay System will look like. There are several reasons for this. First, what effect will it have on our bargaining unit? Will we be expected to make sacrifices in order to fund their pay plan (can they point to potential FSS cost savings that may then turn into a reality)? Second, are cost-savings, performance improvement or reduced budget requirements an integral part of their pay plan? Do they intend to make changes or improvements in their operations in order to do business more efficiently or effectively to justify their pay plan? Finally, and maybe the most important reason to me to adopt a wait-and-see attitude is, why can I not find out any information about their pay plan? Why won't management share with us what is being proposed? I know exactly what PASS is developing. They are happy to answer any questions you have or give you any information you want. Not the case with our controller colleague's pay plan.

You are most likely interested in what is going to happen in the near future though. Our new AAT-1, Ron Morgan, seems to support us. He has set aside funds to begin developing a new pay system for FSS employees, and is urging us to get underway. Additionally, NAATS, at the July-August Board of Director's, meeting passed several motions (unanimously) that both support and fund our intentions to develop a competitive and rewarding pay system for our option. Soon we will attempt to set-up a communications network with all your facilities. We want to hear your ideas on what to include in our new plan, and, at the same time, keep you appraised of the evolutionary chain of events. Once a decision is made, and we move on, there will be little to no time to continue a debate on the merits of that decision. That is why it is important for us to get you information in a timely manner, and especially important for you to respond with your ideas.

Once again, I do not seem to have enough room to share everything I would like to about new pay. I will be attending the National Membership Convention in San Francisco and I am looking forward to meeting you.

During the past twenty months or so, I have pursued numerous paths to optimize NAATS bargaining unit member participation under Article 82, Sections 1 through 6. To summarize, this article states that Union representatives have the right to participate in NTSB investigations (at the complete discretion of the NTSB), when an accident or incident occurs involving fatalities or injuries in which services, including weather, provided by a member of the bargaining unit are a factor. It goes on to state that we have the option to attend training courses and NTSB hearings if so desired.

One of the major obstructions that I have encountered is obtaining funding and accident investigation training for all of the regional NTSB representatives. Some regional representatives have attended the training classes, now we have to work on getting involved in the investigations.

One Catch-22 is the wording of Article 82, section 82-02. When an accident or incident occurs, it may be hours or days before all the information is gathered to indicate weather a bargaining unit member is involved. How is the regional com center going to know if he or she should call a NAATS representative? How does the NTSB fit into this equation? These are just a few of the questions that I am waiting for answers on.

Here are some of the issues we will be facing this year:

1. Why have so few representatives been sent for training, and who is responsible for the cost?
2. Why haven't any representatives been called to participate in an investigation?
3. What level of participation is authorized, is it limited to 'facility' operations, if so why?
4. Can we negotiate necessary changes to our contract to increase our involvement?
5. Can we assure that all regions are staffed with two NTSB representatives?.

In closing, I hope to have answers to these questions soon, perhaps some of these issues will be resolved at the NAATS convention. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you need help with any related issues. If I don't have an answer on hand, I will get one for you.

DID YOU KNOW?

1) GPS is the future navigational system for the World!
2) The FAA's time schedule is 10-15 years.
3) Japan's time schedule was moved up from after the year 2000 to 1997-98, and other countries are aggressively pursuing systems.
4) The FAA disbanded the GPS section in Washington.
5) GPS can replace radar, VOR, NDB, Loran and ILS
6) GPS is a relatively cheap navigational system and is a very small piece of equipment that can be deployed quickly & easily.
7) That the "P" signal, which is used only by the military because of its accuracy, could jeopardize the security of this country.
8) The FAA's 500 million dollar plus WAAS system is to go on line sometime in 1997, 1998, or ? Its main purpose is to make the S/A signal almost as accurate as the military "P" signal.
9) The accuracy of GPS is only limited to what you want. Meter, centimeter, or Less.
10) There are already operational systems in the private sector. The components are simply an Aircraft receiver/transmitter, receiver sites, and a base station. The acft transmits its call sign, airspeed, altitude, position, and tract. This is then displayed on an off the shelf computer monitor.

These are just some of the Did You Know's of GPS and each one of them you could write volumes on. Just GPS terminology and contractions could keep you going for weeks, but I'm close to my 250 word guideline. People that know me know I don't like to write but I will talk your ear off. So if anyone would like more info I'll be at the SF0 convention or you can give me a call or drop me a line & I'll call you. GPS is the Future, and our Future, and should be pursued with great vigor.

There is a lot or very little depending on how you look at things. We've certainly seen enough changes with the introduction of METAR and TAF. Then we've seen many of our best cross over into AOS. Some of our FSDPS sites have found themselves short staffed and facing the prospects of part timing. The TXP upgrades are done, and now we wait for OASIS.

Quite possibly the most news worthy is the resumption of talk concerning a transfer of the FSDPS into the AOS organization. It has been awhile since Terminal and Enroute automation moved over to AOS; most of us thought FSDPS would follow. Just when it seemed that it would never come about, the subject has been resurrected again. Unfortunately, it is still too early to report anything specific; hopefully we'll hear more positive news in the near future.

This is probably a very good time for those of us who work in the FSDPS to begin a conversation. If in fact, FSDPS is about to be transferred into AOS, then we certainly have something to talk about. There are plenty of other issues as well; i.e., staffing, part timing, equipment problems, new technologies, the list could go on.

To facilitate these discussions, I have set up an automated mailing list. This mailing list utilizes L-soft's Listserv software. The purpose of this list is for the discussion of FSDPS issues and concerns. This is an open and unmoderated list, everyone is welcome to join. To subscribe to the FSDPS list, send e-mail to:

The arbitration committee meets periodically to reviews all grievances that your directors have identified as being unable to settle at the regional level. A lot of grievances reach the "Request for Arbitration" level at NAATS Headquarters, but only a small percentage come before the Arbitration committee. The Committee is composed of your President, your Director of Labor Relations and your Executive Director. They report their recommendations to the Board of Directors. In the past year we have looked at about 23 grievances that your directors have forwarded to the arbitration committee; of these about 3 were no winners, 10 were settled before the arbitration, and five have been or will be arbitrated this year. The arbitration committee will not waste your union dollars on just any grievance. We will generally arbitrate grievances where it is cost effective to do so, and where the issue under consideration has a precedent setting issue at stake. All issues reaching the committee get serious consideration before a decision is made.

The NAATS Finance Committee met on September 10, 1996 to conduct a semi-annual review of the NAATS finances and prepare a Budget Proposal for 1997, to be submitted to the Board of Direvtors for review and modification if necessary.

Executive Director Gary SImms, as usual, had a well prepared budget framework for us to begin our work, and with a few changes, the Proposed Budget was finalized. NAATS policy is tro formulate a fiscally conservative budget, while at the samew timeallow for savings, operations of the Union and to provide for other contingencies. For example, in 1997, new contract negotiations will begijn, and bveru shortly 1997 or 1998 we hope to pay off the NAATS office mortgage.

The Proposed 1997 Budget is to be considered by the BOD during its regular meeting in October. NAATS is in a strong financial position for 1997, and all members should be proud of their support of NAATS, as NAATS IS PROUD OF YOU. Individually we could have accomplished a few things, but through our combined efforts, we have accomplished far more.

At the Board of Directors meeting in May of this year, a suggestion was brought to the attention of the BOD. The proposal to the BOD stated there was no perceived Board of Directors' policy regarding the future of Flight Service. It was suggested to form a Strategic Planning Committee to formalize a "Vision Statement". That committee consists of three Regional Coordinators: Daniel Hart - Alaska, John Dibble - Northwest Mountain, and myself, Ron McKinnis - Central. Gary Simms, our Executive Director, also contributed input and guidance to the committee.

Common sense tells us that we must look at this endeavor as a continuous and ever-changing commitment. If we accept this task as a one-time event or statement, we are doing a great disservice to ourselves as a Committee and also to our Bargaining Unit Members as a whole. Therefore, accepting this as an ongoing process is necessary to see that the needs for Flight Service are extended well into the next century.

Contributions were solicited from the bargaining unit members to add to initial drafts of the "Vision Statement". Those contributions received were compiled by Daniel Hart into a document that thus far discuss such topics as duties, premises, responsibilities, structure, mission, mechanisms for change, training, and our interaction with the public that will continue to keep us as a recognized and welcomed contributing strength to the aviation community.

This committee will to continue to welcome any input.