NAATS
Convention 2000
NAATS
CONVENTION
2000
SAN DIEGO, CA
NOV. 15-16, 2000
- The Handlery
- Hotel & Resort
FACREP TRAINING
NOV. 14TH
- Reservations: 619-298-0511/800-676-6567 (M-F 8-5)
- Refer to NAATS meeting for special group rate of
$89.00
- By Oct 12, 2000
Back to Table of Contents
OASIS Update
Jeff Barnes, OASIS Representative
08/21/00 - As I write this the final two weeks of testing prior to what everyone hopes is a successful turn on of the OASIS prototype at SEA AFSS has begun. While we all hope that the system will go operational on the 11th of September I promise that the union's eyes are focused closely on the suitability of the system for that operational use. Under the MOU between NAATS and the Agency the final decision on the suitability will lie with the Site Evaluation Team (SET). The SET is composed of myself and Alice Haines, the SEA FacRep on the union side, and Dave Ipsen from SEA and Barbara Jackson from ATP-420 in headquarters on the management side. Our group will work in consensus to achieve a decision on September 5. If the SET cannot reach a consensus decision then it will be elevated to the national levels of the union and management for decision. I view Alice as the key member of the team. She knows her people and has a much better grasp of what they will accept. Her evaluation will be supported at all levels of the union.
The first week of testing will look at integration and dual addressing. How the OASIS integrates into the NAS to make sure that it's communicating properly with everyone it's supposed to be talking to. The dual addressing part is the solution to the question of how to keep M1FC ready to go as a backup in case it is determined at some point that use of the OASIS has to be discontinued for operational reasons. At SEA every message that comes in will be sent to both the OASIS and M1FC so that the M1FC will be current on everything except the proposed flight plans, and those can be transferred manually. This is something completely new to the AFSS world, so it has to be thoroughly tested to make sure it isn't impacting other systems.
The second week of testing will be operational testing. This operational testing will be different from prior tests because rather than focus on specific functionality the testing will be concentrating on the big picture. Not "can I file a flight plan," but rather "can I manage the preflight position on the OASIS." So the tests have been geared toward demonstrating position management. The tests will be as realistic as they can be with actual testing done by facility employees while the Test Development Team (TDT) supports them.
The following week (The week after Labor Day) will be used to make and report the final decision of the SET and to prepare and coordinate the documentation needed to go operational on the 11th. At that point the system will go into operational use at SEA AFSS and Independent Operational Testing and Evaluation (IOT&E) will commence. An independent team will come in and observe operations and talk to specialists about using OASIS. They will report their findings to Washington, DC. As the name says, this is an independent test organization that reports directly to the highest levels of the FAA. The NAATS representative to the IOT&E Team is Dave Hoover.
Having laid out these activities it bears repeating that everything halts if the SET team doesn't agree to the operational suitability of the OASIS system. We are finding out new stuff on a daily basis. Some of it is neat; some of it is bad. When we find something bad we have to look closely at the impact it has on the specialist's ability to do his or her job. We have to determine if it is something that we can't live without, or if it is something that can be lived with until the next software drop, or if it is something that can be lived with until we get to the full In Service Decision (ISD) system in 2002.
No one has any thought that what goes operational at SEA AFSS will be the final configuration that will then be installed nationwide. In fact, by the MOU the SEA system can only be installed in SEA. Not only that, but the initial SEA system won't be the one that they will have to live with for nearly two years. At least one new software version is planned for late 2000 or early 2001, and more could be done prior to ISD if deemed operationally critical. Plans have been made to leap back strongly into development as soon as the new fiscal year with full funding arrives. At all levels I deal with regularly there is a keen awareness of what we went through with Model One and no one desires even a perception that OASIS is heading down the same path.
We know we still have significant problems to work through. The Inflight and Flight Watch positions need to be substantially redesigned, a replacement for the L flag needs to be implemented, inclusion of productivity software such as Microsoft Office needs to be looked at, the weather graphics need to be finalized and fully implemented to comply with the decisions of the human factors team, and the unique needs of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean need to be evaluated and addressed. Headquarters management is aware of this and most support it. Part of my job is to make sure that no one loses sight of these issues and forgets them in the rush of going operational at SEA.
Having said that, there is a lot to like in the OASIS. The system has significantly improved since it was displayed at the National Meeting last year. I have made my strongest suggestion to the OASIS Core Team that there once again be demos available at the National Meeting. Nothing will be finalized until the new fiscal year arrives with money, but I will continue to push for the demos.
I would like to thank all the work being done by the union members of the OASIS Human Factors Team and the Test Development Team. They are a key part of any success the program has. I would also like to thank Wally Pike and the Board of Directors for their support and guidance. They have made the heartburn that comes with this job tolerable. I would like to thank the NAATS Union Liaisons at headquarters also. I rely on each and every one of them for support in working the OASIS program in their areas. Thanks to the people at the FSDPSs and AFSSs that are helping during various test activities to ensure that everything is processing correctly. Mostly I would like to thank Alice Haines and the union members at SEA AFSS. They are the ones who will transform this system from something to tolerate into something to enjoy using. They are going to be working with hardships for the next year or two, but they will have the opportunity to present the rest of us with a system we can be proud of. All these thanks don't mean I'm fixing to go anywhere (much to the chagrin of some members of the reading audience I'm sure.). I just want to ensure that the credit for the success of the OASIS system is placed where it should be. At the feet of the specialists in the field that have poured, and will continue to pour, their energy into making it a great tool for all of us. There are many in management who have also done a lot for the program. I will not single them out here as I'm sure we have all noted management does not have any problem showing their gratitude for their own in more material ways. As that is much less likely to happen for the rank and file workers, for now you will have to be content with my gratitude for your hard work.
09/10/00 - OASIS will not be going operational at SEA AFSS tomorrow as had originally been scheduled. It has been delayed a week to accommodate testing necessary to make sure that some last minute software fixes had actually worked. Since 08/21 life has been, ummm� interesting. In an ironic twist the SLC WMSCR accused the OASIS program of trying to run roughshod over them. There was some justification to their view, but like any good governmental organization they overstated the case to the point that they deeply insulted every specialist in the country. WMSCR gave a set of requirements to the OASIS program of problems that would have to be fixed prior to OASIS getting full service from WMSCR. A couple of their requirements identified real concerns in the OASIS, and resulted in the software fix that delayed the turn on. However, the remainder of them were requirements to prevent specialists from making errors that they can make today on Model One. They are not real problems because we're professionals and don't make those mistakes today. If one of us makes a mistake entering a weather observation or PIREP we correct it, and our need to correct is rare considering the many years of experience we have doing our job. The gentlemen representing WMSCR argued loudly and angrily that that was not sufficient justification. They stated that operations on OASIS would cause an unsupportable increase to the workload of the workers at WMSCR. This position made me so angry that I had to step out of the room and cool off for a bit. For any number of reasons this was an idiotic argument. First, what made them think that a switch to a new system would cause us to start entering everything wrong, considering that we've been doing it for 10-15 years the same way with no complaints from WMSCR. Second, we were talking about a single facility that would have minimal impact even if they started making a lot of mistakes for some strange reason. And third, the mistakes that WMSCR was talking about would not even present a workload to their operators. They would result in observations and/or PIREPs not looking right to the end users, cut short or with extra spaces, etc. And it became very apparent to me that we are no longer considered the end user to them. Their overriding concern is for the airlines. The implication of this is that if things don't come out of WMSCR absolutely perfect that the airline employees who deal with this information can't figure it out. At this telcon I demanded that WMSCR supply the union with data showing pre-OASIS workload and post-OASIS workload for their operators so we can see the dramatic increase in their workload. The lead of the Independent Operational Test and Evaluation Team also expressed her interest in the data. If something causes a dramatic increase in their workload I will be in the forefront of lobbying to fix it. If, as I suspect, their workload is unchanged, or even goes down I want�well, I'll figure that out when the time comes.
I reluctantly agreed with a ceremony occurring on 09/25 to mark the use of the OASIS prototype system in live operation at SEA. It was to be a chance for the brass to come and have their photos taken and to show how smart and competent they are to the world. Then everything slipped a week and the Independent Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) was slipped two weeks to begin on 09/25. What had been misgivings about the original date turned into outright opposition for me. On 09/25 the specialists will have been on OASIS for only a week. Further, that is when IOT&E will start increasing the stress because evaluators will be sitting behind the specialists as they work (they will be evaluating OASIS and its suitability, not the specialists). Also, the specialists have had to learn to live with me and a number of other strangers basically living in their facility for weeks. This ceremony would just add a spark to an already volatile situation. Here is what is proposed� A small group of about 50 (Their words, not mine!!!) would come in and there would be speeches and some plaques handed out (no other awards at this time). This ceremony is not supported by the union, facility management, or the IOT&E organization. We could reluctantly support it if it took place after IOT&E when the disruption would have been lessened by the completion of IOT&E and better familiarity with OASIS. I also told the Program Office people (basically, the Program Office is where the OASIS purse strings are) about the rocky history that management has had regarding awards with money always being there for management, but rarely for specialists (sadly, from my time in headquarters I can only reaffirm this having seen monetary awards given to wholly undeserving people). They were unmoved by any of this, and to the best of my knowledge planning for this thing proceeds unchecked. This I can say with certainty. I will not be here. Neither will Wally Pike, Don McLennan (Regional Director), or Alice Haines (unless another matter brings her in). So there will be no NAATS participation in this activity if it takes pace as scheduled. At headquarters Donna Holmes and Wally Pike are continuing to work this issue to try to get it moved.
The final testing of OASIS went well, with only a small number of problems found, and none of those was significant enough to jeopardize the turn on scheduled for 09/18. The Site Evaluation Team will meet tomorrow to formalize their decision and submit it.
If it seems that I have been too much of an apologist for the OASIS program, I am sorry. I am not hesitant to say that there are still a lot of problems to be fixed within the system. We have approximately 530 Program Trouble Reports written against OASIS, and I would not be surprised to see more generated by the SEA specialists as they begin to use the system on a daily basis. Many of these have been resolved, but many remain to be addressed. We still have a lot of work ahead of us to resolve these issues and make this system ready for prime time in 2002. The coming year is going to a full one for me, the Human Factors Team, the Test Team, and all the union people that are involved in OASIS. This operational system in Seattle will do nothing to slow down activities associated with OASIS over the coming 18 months.
While these issues have made my time here less than fun, I would again like to commend the specialists of Seattle AFSS. They are showing a lot of energy for getting to work on this system and living with its shortcomings while submitting feedback to improve it for all of us. They will be major contributors to the efforts ahead of us to continue improving the system into something we will all be able to use, and use well. I appreciate the annoyances they have had to tolerate and will continue to have to tolerate for some time. We will continue to try to minimize those as much as we can.
Interesting comment overheard last week from a headquarters person.... "I can't read METARs and I helped develop them." The thing that increases the sadness of this is that it was said by a person with a Flight Service background, and was meant, even if it was said as a joke.
Back to Table of Contents
OASIS
- A Thumbnail History
Jeff Barnes, OASIS Representative
OASIS was originally conceived as one of the first three major acquisitions under the FAA's new Acquisition Management System (AMS). It was the only AFSS System to fall under the new system at the time. It was of particular interest because it was envisioned as a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) acquisition, meaning that the hardware and software would be commercially available and suitable for use with only minor modifications. The program has been a contentious one from the beginning, becoming more so as NAATS became more closely involved with it.
The COTS concept has worked very well for the hardware aspect of the system as the hardware is readily available and local area network technology is a mature, well known technology. The basic flaw was in the reasoning that commercially available software could be used with minimal modification. Basically, there was a belief that you could take a DUAT Program and modify it to meet our needs. The core of the OASIS software is the DTC DUAT program. As our needs for functionality were better identified it became necessary to modify the basic DUAT software more and more. Finally this reached the point where it could no longer be called COTS and the software type was changed from COTS to developmental, meaning that it could be modified as extensively as needed under the AMS. The shortcomings of the software also necessitated the move to 21-inch monitors, which necessitated the acquisition of new consoles for our stations.
Another aspect of the system is that it is leased from Harris Corporation, not owned by the FAA. This presented advantages under the COTS acquisition that have become disadvantages under the developmental acquisition of the software. It means that certain aspects of the development have become more expensive than they would have been if the contract had been negotiated as a developmental system from the beginning. On the hardware side this presents significant advantages. During the actual deployment of the system stations will be installed with whatever hardware is standard at the time of installation. This means that stations further down the deployment schedule will have an advantage in that they will be getting a mature software system and better hardware than those stations that are early in the deployment schedule.
A significant error on the part of the FAA was to agree that the OASIS system would be designed to meet the specifications laid out in the B-Spec, which is a specification document that was prepared by Harris Corporation. Normally acquisitions are required to satisfy the Final Requirements Document, which is produced by the FAA. This means that any change we make to the system requires a change to the B-Spec regardless of whether it was captured in the requirements document or not. Also, FAA manuals and orders are guidelines, not requirements under the B-Spec.
The union involvement grew in weight and acceptance to where we have become integral to all aspects of the program. Most have seen our involvement as beneficial, rather than a hindrance to the program and wish we had been around from the beginning. Our involvement in OASIS has helped the agency realize that closer involvement by unions earlier in the acquisition process means systems are acquired faster, more efficiently, and cheaper than without union involvement until deployment.
The volume of problems with OASIS led to the formation of the OASIS Human Factors Team, which many see as a model for human factors teams across the agency.
Congress threw sand in the OASIS gears when they budgeted OASIS for 10 million dollars in FY 2000. In spite of that work has continued forward with an eye toward having an operational prototype at SEA AFSS in FY 2000.
That is a quick thumbnail sketch of where we've been on the OASIS program. We continue to work hard to make positive changes in the program and will do so through its life cycle.
Back to Table of Contents
Health and Safety News
Suzanne M. Pellosmaa, NAATS OSH REP
Position and Frequency Tones
Recently I received an issue/concern paper from one of our flight service stations addressing loud and obnoxious tones that some specialists have been subjected to. The tones have occurred at various positions and, supposedly, the FAA is only halfheartedly trying to rectify the situation. My next newsletter article will discuss this topic in more detail, but I am curious to know if any other facilities have been experiencing the same type of problem. If your facility has, please email me as soon as possible and let me know if the problem has been resolved. With the old phone system, I received a lot of static over my headset even though I was not actually keying my headset. Once the new ACD system was installed, I found most of the static problem disappeared.
Lyme's Disease
An issue paper on Lyme's Disease was presented at the last National OSHECCOM meeting. There have been concerns about the possibility of acquiring the disease raised by the New England Region's Airways Facility personnel who have to work outside. In a previous article, I mentioned the topic of Lyme's Disease and ways to help prevent being bitten by the tick, which carries the disease. If anyone wishes any further information on this topic, please contact me at your convenience. The New England regional OSHECCOM recommended that the agency reimburse agency employees for the cost of obtaining the Lyme's Disease vaccine. The response from FAA Headquarters, "Due to the potential for irreversible complications to be triggered by formulations currently available in the US, Lyme's vaccination should not be required, recommended, or reimbursed by the agency or any LOB (lines of business)." and, "That the employees have the option of discussing the potential risks and benefits, and to obtain Lyme's Disease vaccinations with their private physicians." The PASS representative did not agree with the reimbursement portion of the response. If recognized early, Lyme's Disease can be easily treated with antibiotic medication.
Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD)
You and/or your co-workers may have experienced a traumatic event or a critical incident that can cause an unusually strong emotional reaction which potentially could have interfered with the ability to function either at work or at home. Even though the event is over, you and/or co-workers may now be experiencing or may experience later date, strong emotional or physical reactions resulting from that event. It is very common, in fact quite normal, for people to experience emotional aftershocks when they have passed through a horrible event. One such event that comes to mind is the St. Louis flooding, which destroyed the flight service station (plus, I'm sure, numerous homes) a few years back.
The purpose of CISD is to help our people. There are many of you who have been affected emotionally by a stressful event at some time in your past. NAATS has always tried to protect its bargaining unit members from the legal ramifications after an aircraft crash, and the March 1994 MOU provides additional protection and assistance for those emotional and psychological effects of critical incident stress which can last a lifetime. Several of the NAATS CISD personnel have been personally involved in a critical incident and therefore have firsthand knowledge of what such an event is like on a personal level.
How does the CISD process begin? When one of the CISD Coordinators or CISD Peer Facilitators are notified of a critical incident, the facility's FacRep is telephoned, and information is gathered from the FacRep to determine if there is a need and a desire for CISD. The FacRep should then make a request for a CISD through the facility manager. The NAATS CISD person will coordinate with the rest of the Critical Incident Response Team once the request is made. If you think that someone at your facility may
be bothered by a recent incident, then please talk to your FacRep and have them speak with that individual. A CISD is usually not conducted until approximately 48 to 72 hours after a crash or other incident, since people typically do not experience the after-effects of the event until a few days after it has taken place. The signs and symptoms of a stress reaction may last a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, and occasionally, even longer, depending of the severity of the traumatic event. With understanding and the support of loved ones, stress reactions usually pass more quickly. Occasionally the traumatic event is so painful that professional assistance from a trained counselor may be necessary. This does not imply craziness or weakness. It simply indicates that the particular event was just too painful for the person to manage on their own.
I am currently the Great Lakes CISD NAATS Representative and I feel this particular process maybe overlooked at times. I shall try to provide more information on this particular process in every newsletter article. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, please contact your local regional NAATS representative or feel free to call me. If you have experienced a traumatic incident recently or from your past and are still bothered by it, please seek guidance through an Employee Assistance Program manager. For a professional consultation, call: 800-234-1EAP.
Back to Table of Contents
Leave Donors Desperately Needed
HENRY OLTMAN, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIALIST, HHR AFSS, has been approved for the Leave Transfer Program. Henry has been off work since last year and has used all of his sick/annual leave. He is currently undergoing additional chemotherapy and it is anticipated he will need approximately 672-1000 hours of donated leave. At this time, Henry is only eligible to receive annual leave donations.
Western-Pacific Region employees may wish to donate leave through the Automated Voluntary Leave Transfer Program by going to HRMD's intranet site:
http://ro.awp.faa.gov.
Please click on AWP-10 - Go to Index on left side, scroll down & click on "Absence & Leave"; click on Voluntary Leave Transfer Program and then click on online leave donor application. You may then complete and submit your leave donation request via this program.
Other FAA and outside federal employees interested in donating leave may do so by completing and submitting OF-630-A, "Request To Donate Annual/Sick Leave To Leave Recipient (Within Agency) Under the Leave Transfer Program". In order to access this form you may click on the following web site address
http://ro.awp.faa.gov now and go directly to the AWP Intranet Home Page or if above address is not highlighted, you may download the form by copying and pasting the above web address into your Intranet browser address. After accessing site, please click on AWP-10, scroll down and click on "frequently requested forms". Then scroll down to section entitled "Leave" and click on required form. This is the only form accepted in this region.
Please make sure to indicate if you wish to have your name released to the recipient. Any undesignated forms will be treated as anonymous donors. Incomplete forms will be returned and could cause a delay.
Facilities at which not all employees have access to cc:Mail, the supervisor, manager, or administrative point of contact should post this notice in a common area for all employees to review as well as provide SF-630A applications.
Your concern and generosity will be greatly appreciated. If you have any additional questions, please contact Hattie Ware-Jones at (310) 725-7803 or by cc:mail using 9-AWP-Leave Donor. You may fax your form to (310) 725-6830.
Back to Table of Contents
Regional Supplements
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER Y2K
7110.10 REWRITE
Brian Whiddig, JNU, has been designated as our regional focal. Please forward your comments or suggestions to him via the AFSS. The workgroup at ENA has been very accommodating in updating us on their progress and including us on telecons as convened. My thanks to Tracey for her communiqu�s. Although we are free to address any and all chapters of the handbook, NAATS has tasked our region with Chapters 13 and 14 specifically.
VOICE SWITCH
As part of the overall AFSS Voice Switch program, NAATS ARS liaison Steve Glowacki has attained an Agency commitment to allow Gary Fischer, ENA, to accompany regional and headquarters representatives on a whirlwind trip around the region in October to brief FSS employees on the new Small Tower Voice Switch equipment. When installed, the STVS will allow for the transfer of phones and radios to the Hub.
CAPSTONE
Brian Gloseclose, ENA, will be joining the regional CAPSTONE project as a full participant, again as a result of the efforts of Steve Glowacki.
ATTE
Tim Maynard has been selected to become a regional instructor for the Air Traffic Teamwork Enhancement Course recently expanded to the FSS bargaining unit. Training is scheduled for sometime in November with at least 2 classes planned for FY01.
VOLCANIC ASH USER NEEDS SURVEY
As a result of the efforts of NAATS ARW liaison Margaret Hamilton, FAA HQ will soon be sending out the Volcanic Ash User Needs Survey to a number of facilities, particularly those immediately along the "Ring of Fire." This survey has been coordinated with NAATS and participants are authorized duty time to complete it.
FAMILIARIZATION TRAINING
The new Draft Order 3120.29A is out for review. Copies are forthcoming. In the interim, GENOT 9/32 issued 5/99 is no longer the controlling document. See NAATS/FAA MOU (Art56 of the pending CBA) for guidance. The long-awaited Q&A document has been sent to the field as well as a number of subsequent follow-on questions. I have sent yet more AAL generated questions to the HQ program office through the ATD and will distribute the responses when received.
OASIS HUMAN FACTORS TEAM
Guylan advises that as a result of anticipated OASIS deficiencies identified by Tracey and former Operational Test Team member, John Shadwick relating to Alaskan operations, the HF team will be scheduling an upcoming visit to the region to further identify and address region-specific needs. Questions about the current status of the program and changes surrounding the expanded IF consoles should be directed to Guylan.
WHEN "BIG OIL" TALKS, THE FAA LISTENS
For years now, the FAA has basically turned a deaf ear to our requests to "change the operating hours here" or "maintain the hours there." Most recently, we have been forced to grieve the Agency's failure to bargain the reduction of hours and the elimination of one FTE position at SCC. NAATS went so far as to agree to allow the change to remain in effect if only the Agency would acknowledge its obligation to negotiate such changes in the future. We've just learned that at essentially the same time we were attempting to resolve the negotiability issue with the ATD over the phone, the Agency, (again behind our backs) unilaterally revised its CWO contract and re-extended the hours at SCC to its previous level, based solely on a complaint by Phillips Petroleum. To add insult to injury, they did it without restoring the lost FTE position.
NAATS CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVES
HQ reports that all of the ballot initiatives have passed. One can only assume that the delegate process will be in effect at the upcoming convention and that HQ will be shortly issuing guidance on how to elect the individual delegates. Again that is one per AFSS and one other for the FSS's at large as well as the FSDPS at large.
ROTATION
Never a dull moment here. Grievances continue to mount over travel, watch schedules, MDS and the like. While we have made an effort to move toward their concerns on several rotational FAATP issues, the ATD has yet to agree to come our way on any of the proposals we submitted last April. Trent is hell-bent on a concession from us on the "reduced M&IE while in government quarters" that everyone else in the Agency has agreed to or been forced to accept.
It has been reported on at least two occasions, that supervisors have indicated management may be hoping to forestall agreement long enough for the various rotational MOU's to expire with the ratification of the new contract. With that possibility, I have asked Trent for an agreement that the existing MOU's remain in full force and effect and would be re-dated effective with ratification until such time as the Parties elected to renegotiate.
DRUG PROGRAM UPDATE
NAATS received its annual Drug and Alcohol briefing last month in DC. Of particular note is that much like the 1989 western poppy seed revelation, the agency has now declared that THC positives may result from the consumption of agricultural grade hemp seed oil. These by-products have recently begun finding their way into commercial specialty items such as salad dressings etc., and that a "zero tolerance" policy is in effect. Sterilized seed or not, hemp oil related "positives" will be treated as the real deal.
Employees and FacReps alike should also be alert to continued violations of the Privacy Act, particularly as it pertains to the public display of Social Security Numbers. As you are no doubt familiar, each of us is required to verify our identity by signing the test list. Displayed therein in plain view are the individual employee names and SSN's. As bona fide FAA management representatives, it is perfectly legal for the contract test employee to have access to our SSN's. It is however, a violation of federal law for those same employees to openly display the list in such a way as to allow any one employee to readily view the SSN of another. FacReps are encouraged to intervene immediately if such violations are observed or reported and grieve the occurrence as appropriate.
Another situation to be mindful of which demands no further illustration is that of contract employees requesting or requiring employees to provide urine samples while visiting the restroom to attend to other bodily functions. This type of situation is not to be tolerated in any way shape or form.
LMR
Our Coercion/Interference ULP against the Agency was just dismissed by the FLRA for "lack of merit." An appeal to the General Counsel is not anticipated.
LR has been asked to arrange for scheduling of arbitrators in the matter of 99-001 Ops Deviation, 99-013 TDY assignments and 99-026,29,32 PRIB 21. The affected parties will be advised of further developments.
It appears that at the same time we are arguing grievances on the basis of management's refusal to bargain the reduction of operating hours at one of the remote FSS's, they have put us off long enough to arbitrarily reinstate hours, again in violation of negotiated agreements. Additional grievances are pending (see "When Big Oil Talks").
Meanwhile, management continues to assert that the Management Directed Schedule abolishes our rights to negotiate a Basic Watch Schedule. Mmmm, you can almost smell the overtime simmering on the burner.
CONTROLLER HEADSET REPLACEMENT
Making its way around the region is the new Voice Switch Headset Sample Kit consisting of 8 different models of Plantronics headsets compatible with the new voice switches. Ultimately it is supposed to make it to all ATC facilities in the region so that each individual controller can select the model they want. As I understand it, the AFSS's are first up and then once the FSS's obtain the new STVS equipment, the kit will be made available there for review. I am forwarding the associated documentation to the facilities for your review.
The kit is currently in JNU and then will move to ENA and FAI.
LMR/FACREP TRAINING
This year's convention speaker list and workshop topics are being designed once again to provide for both maximum information sharing and the use of authorized duty time. Both old and new FACREPS alike should consider Art.4 or personal time as appropriate in order to obtain the benefits of the new training topics and perspectives sure to be offered during the Tuesday session. Please review Art.4 of the CBA and the agenda when released to determine your overall eligibility.
MEMBERSHIP/FACREP UPDATE
Please note Guylan's new home office voice/fax number is 780-6509.
Best wishes to Linda Lang, longtime member and former regional NFP Coordinator who retired from JNU at the end of August.
Margaret Ames has assumed the thankless position of OME FacRep.
KTN continues to recruit everyone it can get its hands on. Congratulations to developmental employee Timothy Godat for his support.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Guylan for voluntarily extending his recent visit to the East coast and joining me at the NAATS Business Meeting in D.C.
NAATS members are reminded once again to let us know if you're interested in serving on specific workgroups, projects or assisting in various other tasks. Recognizing we are being forced to increasingly concede, we will none the less make every reasonable attempt to counteract the recurring "staffing" objections raised by you know who!
We apologize in advance to the FSS personnel when we are not successful in plugging you into issues more suited to your specific expertise and talents.
FAA HUMOR IN REVIEW
More things you'd like to say at work:
- And your crybaby whiny-butt opinion would be �?
- Do I look like a people person?
- This isn't an office. It's Hell with fluorescent lighting.
- I started out with nothing & still have most of it left.
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.
- If I throw a stick, will you leave?
- Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
- Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.
- I'm trying to imagine you with a personality.
- A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.
- Can I trade this job for what's behind door #1?
- Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
- Nice perfume. Must you marinate in it?
- Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.
- How do I set a laser printer on stun?
- I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks.
DILBERT (c) by Scott Adams
EASTERN REGION
Dave Vitko, AOO AFSS
The installation of the WSI equipment is now complete but as of this writing all of the specialists have not been trained.
Tone Burst Update
On Tuesday, August 2, 2000, I represented NAATS for the tone burst testing at Altoona AFSS. The day started with a meeting, consisting of three management personnel, two airways facilities technicians, two engineers from Oklahoma City, a safety manager and myself. We discussed the different incidents, tone bursts and static bursts.
The lead engineer explained to the group how BCS Technologies or EON, as it is now known, is a digital system with no limitations but can handle what the system puts out. In other words, you can't force more water through a hose than will fit. The purpose of the tests will be to compare the sound put in to what the system puts out. This will be accomplished by sound pressure level tests using various pieces of equipment.
One expensive piece of equipment used was the Head and Torso Simulator (Type 4128), costing $25,000. This Simulator consists of a head mounted on a torso, which extends to the waist. It can be utilized free-standing or fitted on a tripod or rotating table using the tripod mounting adaptor. The simulator can be used to determine a variety of headphone characteristics.
The first day of testing was cut short because of an additional late piece of testing equipment.
On the second and third days, NAATS was represented by Jeff Steffen, the alternate FacRep. Jeff reports that several tests were conducted, with each type of headset and handset, in different scenarios (volume up, halfway up and down low). All the decibels levels were recorded.
When the tone burst from a credit card machine was to be duplicated, the airport responsible was called, but we were told that the machine had been replaced and could not be tested.
The results were gathered by the Safety Manager and sent to Aviation Medicine. Each facility will be contacted and advised of the results and what action will be taken.
Altoona Airways Facilities Weighs In
The following is a letter written by Tim Hite, an Airways Facilities Technician at Altoona AFSS. The letter is addressed to William Morrow (Systems Maintenance Office, PASS Representative) and Harry Hale (Systems Maintenance Office, Manager).
Bill and Harry, I am puzzled and amazed at the lack of support from the Region and SMO (Systems Maintenance Office) technical staff on this issue (referring to the tone bursts tests). Air Traffic is a prime part of the National Airspace System and with the extreme pressure of CA1's, UCR's and employee work loss, I thought this effort was a vital mission. I must have been wrong, because there was no Pittsburgh TSO (Technical Support Office) technical staff or PSO (Program Support Office) safety persons and no ROSHM (Regional Occupational Safety Manager) present. As was stated by AOS (Airways Operations Specialist), they thought regional and SMO staff would want to know what's going on in their AFSS facility with this issue and possible solutions. This was also echoed by the National Safety Manager (MW) while attending this testing. At 84gl (Unit Office) we are staffed at a very low level and with present conditions of F&E installation of RCE (Remote Communications Equipment), training, Flight Checks, restorations of facility and the ongoing tone problems it makes it extremely hard to focus on the mission at hand. I would like the traveling TSO and PSO staff to remember this when they visit our SSC (Systems Support Center) and tell us how they are supporting us in the field and want to do better. I will apologize to our AT partners and to the two fine experts who assisted us in our time of need, plus give them thanks for being there.
SOUTHERN REGION
An Open Letter to the Membership
Greg McGann, RDU AFSS
I am concerned with the direction our union is taking in our pay and contract talks. There seems to be a consensus among the BOD that a targeted increase in pay is inherently a good thing. The FAA, on the other hand, probably feels that the Union can be bought off with a promise of a slight increase for a few people and let the rest get nothing. The problem is not that the union seems to accept this, but that they seem to feel compelled to support such decisions, even when they are obviously unfounded.
A perfect example is that of EFAS. At the time this was created it should have been obvious to the Union that the FAA was creating a meaningless position. EFAS is probably one of the easiest aspects of our job since it deals only with current weather. I've had people who have had EFAS training tell me that the training was excellent and that they learned a lot that was helpful to them in their briefing duties, but very little that applied to EFAS. As one person said to me "I already knew how to read a SIGMET."
So how did the Union ever buy off on this? The FAA said, essentially, "We'll create a new position with an important sounding name. The position description will be basically the same as for Inflight, except that we'll drop everything other than the dissemination of current hazardous weather. We'll give the people who staff the position extra weather training, but it will be of limited use to EFAS. It would be of great use to pilot Briefers, but they can't have it. We'll put these new positions in some of the facilities, but not all to keep it more exclusive. Of course, we won't take these duties out of the position descriptions for Inflight, so facilities without EFAS will continue to provide the exact same info as EFAS does, just on a different frequency, and in addition to all their other duties."
You would expect the Union to laugh themselves silly over this proposal. Create a new position that duplicates one aspect of Inflight? Drop all the other duties except for the easiest one? Put it in a small percentage of the facilities? What could be the possible benefit of such a change? "Oh," says the FAA. "We'll also give certified EFAS specialists more money, special shifts, and reduced duties." Such a pathetic attempt at buying off the Union should have been transparent to anyone, but astoundingly enough, the Union accepted it. The results? A few people got a raise at the expense of the rest of the bargaining unit, and human nature being what it is a great amount of animosity was generated. I have been in facilities where the EFAS specialist worked with his back to the room because no one would speak to him. The others saw a few people getting a pie job for more money and they naturally resented it.
With the consolidation into AFSS's and the promotions to GS-12 the pay issue was largely put to rest, but the fact remains that EFAS specialists are still getting a pie job for no reason. You would expect the Union to favor the elimination of this position, especially with the current staffing shortage, but this is not the case. The Union has been supporting the idea of EFAS, expounding on the critical aspects of the service, and painting a glowing picture that is absurd. Someone on the BOD needs the cajones to stand up and admit that the emperor has no clothes.
We don't need to exaggerate the importance of the job we do. As aircraft equipment and navigation systems continue to improve, weather-related accidents are accounting for a higher and higher percentage of the total. The advent of windshear reporting equipment has helped, but weather-related and CFIT accidents have risen to account for approximately 80% of all General Aviation accidents. This has been a reversal of the trend through the 80's, when GA accidents were declining. The change came about in the early 90's, right about the time DUATS came out. Coincidence? I don't think so. The rise in self-briefing services has paralleled the increase in weather-related GA accidents.
Back in 1993 I sat in a jump-seat behind a grizzled old USAir captain who thought that DUATS was a bad idea. He asked me how long it took me to feel confident and comfortable in pilot briefing. I thought about it and decided that it was at least a year, although the learning curve was steepest in the first three years. It never really stops - I still feel each year that I brief better than the year before - but most of the improvement came in the first three years.
"That's the problem," the pilot said. "If I brief myself every time I fly it comes to about 250 briefings a year. You do more briefings in a week than I do in a year, and you'll do more in a year than I'll do in my flying career, and you didn't feel comfortable until you'd done that's year's worth of briefings. I'm a professional pilot, and I fly almost every day. Imagine the situation for a VFR weekend pilot? There is no substitute for experience, and you simply can't get that level of experience briefing just yourself. It's the FSS people briefing 25, 50 or more pilots a day that have the experience."
I couldn't have said it better myself. This is what we need to be telling the aviation subcommittees, not trying to convince them that EFAS is crucial to aviation.
This brings us to the issue of reclassification. In my opinion, the emperor still has no clothes and all the efforts to weight our traffic cannot change that. The very nature of our jobs dictates that increasing traffic does not really increase complexity. Almost everything we do, with the exception of Inflight, is a one-at-a-time operation, and the shortcomings of M1FC have practically made Inflight one-at-a-time as well. More traffic does not equate to more complexity, just more traffic. For the most part, facilities with more traffic have more people to handle the traffic. Even counting traffic by services-per-specialist does not address the problem completely, because of the staffing shortages we are all facing, although some facilities are worse off than others. Moreover, with the number of people currently eligible to retire these numbers could change drastically at any time. So why is the Union supporting three levels of facilities? For the same reason they supported EFAS - more money for a select few. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash. The emperor still has no clothes.
I'm sure the thinking is to negotiate a small raise for Level 1 facilities. Even two or three percent would be enough. For that matter a straight transfer into CoreComp with no raise at all would suit the plan, because with three tiers it would still mandate a raise for the Level 2 and Level 3 facilities. The numbers I've seen bandied about are 5 Level 1 facilities, 47 Level 2, and 10 Level 3. This 3-tier plan would therefore give a raise to all but 5 facilities, so how can that be bad? It's bad because it is sacrificing those 5 facilities who may in fact work harder than many Level 2's. I know the plan is to enable people to move up to higher-level facilities, but what makes anyone think there will be PCS money for this? The almost certain result would be that the Level 1's would be closed before long and consolidated into the Level 2's.
Analyzing this further, are we really getting a raise? It seems that the Union's current pay proposal is for pay increases of 5.5%, 10%, and 18%. This doesn't sound like such a great deal to me, because when you start talking percentages you have to have an agreement on one basic thing - a percentage of what? It is very easy for one side to claim we are getting a raise and the other side to claim we are getting a cut, and both can be technically telling the truth, or to put it another way, lying. Let's look at this from a simple point of view. If the Union pay plan is implemented, then five years from now will I be better off under the new system or the current one?
Remember that any new system we get is basically Core Compensation, and under Core Comp we give up our Step increases. I had a Union official explain to me once that Step increases are worth 1.6% per year, even if you have to wait two or three years for the raise. This, however, is highly oversimplified. It comes to 1.6% per year over the 19 years it takes to move from Step 1 to Step 10. Currently Step 1 pay is $48,635 and Step 10 is $63,224. The total increase is $14,589, a 30% raise. Divide that by the 19 years it takes to move to Step 10 and it comes to 1.57%, or roughly 1.6% per year. However, because the dollar amount between Steps is fixed the percentage of each Step decreases. We must also take into account that the Step system covers 19 years while the new pay proposal covers 5. Therefore, we have to crunch some more numbers to answer the question "Will I be better off in 5 years under the new system or the old?"
The answer, of course, depends on your starting point - your current Step and your time in grade. For example, a Step 1 would get 4 increases in the next 5 years, and a Step 10 would get zero. A Step 4 would get either 2 or 3 depending on how long they have been a Step 4. The percentages work out like this:
|
Current
Step
|
Percent
Increase in 5 Years
|
Number
of Increases
|
|
1
|
13.7
|
4
|
|
2
|
10
|
3
|
|
3
|
9.6
|
2
|
|
4
|
6.2
� 9.3
|
2-3
|
|
5
|
6
|
2
|
|
6
|
5.8
|
2
|
|
7
|
3
� 5.7
|
1-2
|
|
8
|
2.7
� 5.5
|
1-2
|
|
9
|
2.7
|
1
|
|
10
|
0
|
0
|
This is the increase we are giving up by moving to Core Comp. Therefore, the amount we are giving up must be subtracted from any raise we get to know where we will stand in 5 years. We can now see that in a Level 1 AFSS you will be worse off if you are a Step 6 or below, a Step 7 with 1 year in grade, or a Step 8 with 2 years in grade. This also applies if you are a Step 2 or lower in a Level 2 AFSS. If you fit one of these categories then your union is currently sacrificing your pay in favor of higher-level facilities. Here is how it breaks down for everyone else. This is the actual raise you would get, not the 5.5%, 10%, and 18% promised.
|
Current
Step
|
Level
1
|
Level
2
|
Level
3 (all +)
|
|
1
|
-8.2%
|
-3.7%
|
4.3%
|
|
2
|
-4.5%
|
0%
|
8%
|
|
3
|
-4.1%
|
+0.4%
|
8.4+
|
|
4
|
-0.7%
to �3.8%
|
+0.7to
+3.8% %
|
8.7%
to 11.8%
|
|
5
|
-0.5%
|
+4%
|
12%
|
|
6
|
-0.3%
|
+4.2%
|
12.2%
|
|
7
|
�0.2%
to +2.5%
|
+4.3%
to 7%
|
12.3%
to 15%
|
|
8
|
0%
to +2.8%
|
+4.5%
to +7.3%
|
12.5%
to 15.3%
|
|
9
|
+
2.8%
|
+7.3%
|
15.3%
|
|
10
|
+
5.5%
|
+10%
|
18%
|
Most of us will probably fall into the 4 to 7 percent range. That's not much of a raise, and a far cry from what the Union is trying to sell us.
There does not seem to be a way to manage the facility levels that has any relationship to the work we do. The goal should be fair and equitable pay for the work we do, and that cannot be achieved by the Machiavellian traffic formulas we have now. Why should a Convective SIGMET receive more weight when read on 122.0 than on 122.2? That's the kind of absurdity that leaves us wondering where our priorities are. What we should be working towards is a realistic method of counting traffic, starting with reversing the change in '81 or '82 that stopped us counting multiple legs as separate briefs. A brief from JFK to LAX is certainly more involved than from JFK to TEB, but the only real difference is a longer enroute forecast. On the other hand, a brief from JFK to TEB to MEM to OKC to LAS to LAX is virtually the same amount of work and involves the same information as briefing five separate aircraft on these legs. You have the same number of SA's, FT's, FD's, etc. It is eminently logical to count these legs as separate briefs and I think the Union did us a disservice when they allowed the FAA to change this.
Another absurdity is the way Airport Advisories are counted. We get a two points for an aircraft contacted and one point for each subsequent contact, unless that subsequent contact is an AA. The number of AA's is subtracted from the other contacts and counted separately. I could see the logic if we were going to weight the AA's more heavily, but in fact they are not included in the total traffic count at all! Who came up with this nonsense and why did the Union allow it?
I do agree that international operations should be weighted more heavily than domestic ones, since they are more complex. We can certainly make a good argument for this right now, and that can only help us in the long run when we finally move to ICAO format for all our operations.
What I am suggesting is that we base our traffic counts on a solid foundation, with roots in the real world, and not try to paint these invisible clothes on the emperor. Whether we allow those figures to dictate different levels of facilities is another matter, but if we do we must insure that these figures reflect the real world.
If we are going to pay people more money for doing more work, then we must pay them more money for doing more work, not for working in a facility that at the time the system was set up did more work. There would have to be a method for a facility to move up, and to be fair, for a facility to move down. You would have to base it on operations per specialist, and every year use the traffic figures to set the salaries for the following year. If your traffic goes up you get a raise, and if your traffic falls your pay does too. As soon as you find yourself objecting to a pay cut just because you are doing less work then you have divorced yourself from the concept of more work/more pay and we're back to square one.
Finally, we move on to the performance-based pay system we are facing. This is just more smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that nothing is changing. There cannot be meaningful change in the way the FAA conducts its business without a fundamental change in the attitude and philosophy in FAA management. A while back I attended a Change Seminar and listened to the speaker describe in glowing detail how the FAA was changing quickly, streamlining operations, and cutting red tape. The speech he gave was all the proof I needed that none of this was going to happen. It wasn't the content of the speech but the way it was delivered. He wasted four hours of my time imparting information he could have relayed in twenty minutes. Talk is cheap, but you can't judge people by what they say, only by what they do, and the FAA is as entrenched as any bureaucracy in the world.
You cannot base pay on performance unless you have a way to evaluate performance. This is so obvious a child would see it, but it has apparently escaped the attention of the FAA and the Union. The philosophy of FAA management has historically been that of the lowest common denominator. Any awards and recognition are spread around so that everyone gets a share so as not to offend anyone. I received an award recently that I felt was the first and only award I've gotten in my career that was specifically related to my work rather than it just being my turn. Sadly, this is the rare exception rather than the rule. Remember the 4-tier rating system we used to have? Does anyone think that these ratings were meted out fairly in other than rare cases? Human nature being what it is, why should anyone go out of their way to do a good job when they are rated year after year exactly the same as someone who never lifts a finger? I once worked in a facility that was rated Outstanding Facility of the Year yet not a single journeyman in the facility was rated higher than Fully Successful. The FAA has a dismal record of evaluating performance and nothing in the new system offers any hope that it will get any better.
Part of the reason that management cannot evaluate performance is that there is no managerial accountability and no yardstick that can be universally applied. Let's examine a hypothetical case in the private sector.
Bob is a supervisor at the Acme Widget Company. He's a good manger and tries to get and keep the best people on his team. He knows what qualities to look for in a worker and he consistently finds and hires these people. John is one of the good workers, and each year Bob recognizes his contributions with favorable performance reports and raises. As a result, the quantity and quality of widgets turned out by Bob's crew is excellent.
On the other hand, Ted, the other team supervisor, doesn't really understand the production of widgets. He treats all his people the same, regardless of how they perform. Alice is an excellent worker, easily as good as John, but every year she gets the same rating and pay as Wally, who seems to excel at finding ways not to work. The quality of the widgets, already low because of substandard employees like Wally, falls still further when Alice decides there is no point is busting her hump for nothing.
This situation doesn't last long. At the end of the year Mr. Big, the head of the company, compares Bob and Ted's performance. While Bob's people are turning out great profits for Acme, Ted's crew is running in the red. Obviously, Ted is incompetent and Mr. Big busts him back down to common employee and hires someone else to fill the position.
Now let's move this case to Flight Service. Neither Bob nor Ted has any financial incentive in the output of their team, which is extremely hard to measure in any case. Bob might try to reward his employees, but at this time there is no way to do so. What's more, Bob is the exception in the FAA - there are far more Ted's than Bob's. Where does that leave the employees?
The private sector operates on the Peter Principle: a person tends to rise to the level of his incompetence. This isn't really so bad, because even if the person is unsuited for his position he was at least competent in his previous one, so he knows enough about his employees to be a somewhat effective manager, at least as far as knowing which ones perform and which ones don't. The FAA, on the other hand, operates on the Dilbert Principle: incompetent people are moved directly to where they can do the least harm - management. Since the output of the employees can't be accurately measured it doesn't matter what the supervisor does. The facility will run just fine without a supervisor. The job still gets done, but since the supervisor has no clue as to what is happening the employees get the same ratings.
There is no requirement that someone be a good employee to be a supervisor. In the old days they were promoted based on the good ol' boy network. Then they moved to SIDP, which was actually a step backwards and gave us some of the worst sups ever. Now they seem to be trying to fill some quota, but the fact remains that the number one prerequisite for promotion in the private sector - performance - is virtually absent in the FAA. You get what you pay for.
I personally think the relationship between supervisor and journeyman is out of whack. Let's look at the private sector. You have an executive who runs part of a company. He actually does the work that makes the business function. He interfaces with the public, he is intimately involved with the product, and the success of the business rests on him. Consequently, he is paid a good salary. He also has a secretary who takes care of routine matters that keep him from his work. He screens the mail, schedules appointments and training, makes arrangements for the boss's lunches. The secretary is paid a much lower salary.
In Flight Service we have a journeyman who provides the product and does the work that makes the agency function. She interfaces with the public and the success of the agency rests on her. She also has a supervisor who takes care of routine matters that keep her from her work. He distributes the mail, schedules appointments and training, and sets up meal breaks. The funny thing is that in this case the journeyman is paid less that the secretary, er, supervisor.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that it takes a competent supervisor to recognize superior performance, and right now we're lucky if half the supervisors meet that criteria. You just cannot apply pay-for-performance in a system with no means or ability to recognize performance. It just ain"t going to happen, folks!
Remember that PASS, in their negotiations, received guaranteed OSI and SCI increases over the life of the contract. What does that say about pay-for-performance? Sounds like the same old automatic increases to me.
It's a tough problem and I have no solution. There are no easy solutions to any of this, but before we can formulate on we have to have an idea of where we are going, and I fear that currently we have no defined goal beyond that general one of some kind of a raise. Without specific goals we cannot devise specific agendas and I would hope that someone recognizes this. Until then, there is only one raise we can assure ourselves of getting - the 1 �% raise we'll get when we resign from the Union.
Greg McGann
RDU AFSS
NAATS Northwest Mountain
SEA AFSS
Alice Haines, SEA FacRep
Greetings from sunny Seattle!!
The past couple of months have been very busy for the facility and me. The Oasis initial training course for all employees has bee completed. (Yes, I mean all). We have also had Dave Hoover, Bill Dolan and Donna Holmes attend the class. Plus several folks from Headquarters have attended. The AF personnel are attending their class this week in the mornings. We received the latest software update from Harris last week, so that the supplemental training on the update also will be conducted this week during the afternoon/evening hours. Of course, during all of this, the normal work of SEA AFSS goes on.
I have been to the Tech Center twice in the past three weeks. The first trip was a meeting of the Test Development Team. We finalized the scenarios for the final testing of Oasis at Seattle and tested the fixes that were contained in the new software. Harris has made some great strides forward in this newest version of OASIS. They have particularly improved portions of the weather graphics and overlays. The second trip was for a Human Factors Team meeting in which we discussed Oasis and the remaining PTR's.
The facility will be inundated with visitors for the next couple of months, with test teams, NAATS representatives, Headquarters types and rumor has it that even Jane Garvey herself may make an appearance. IF she does I hope she's prepared to get and earful from the bargaining unit members.
And still the day-to-day work of the facility goes on. The folks in Seattle have, for the most part, been very enthusiastic about Oasis. They are working together to come up with short cuts and better ways of doing things. After an individual received initial training they were assigned one hour per work for practice. Many felt that this was inadequate. Management agreed to allow for comp time for these people that wanted to spend extra time at work, either before or after their shifts in order to get more practice on the OASIS. Several people are taking advantage of this opportunity.
I must, at this point, hand out kudos to the bargaining unit members for their willingness to try to make this work. They have put up with a lot of overtime, visitors in the facility and other distractions associated with the fielding of a new system. In the process they have continued to do their job and maintain a good sense of humor.
And finally, a GIANT, thank you to Marci, Marty, Ray, Todd, Jeff and Scott for all the hard work they have done as instructors for our Oasis training. I know you all have put in an enormous amount of time to make the training the really comprehensive and understandable for everyone.
WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION
Hawthorne AFSS News
Elinormarie Morrissy, HHR AFSS
HHR FacRep Henry Oltman is currently hospitalized and recovering from surgery for the removal of his left leg, which had been the site of several serious infections he has suffered over the last several months. Conversations with his wife, Diane indicate that he came through the procedure well and further updates on his progress will be posted as they become available.
So far, the HHR bargaining unit has stepped up and donated over 170 hours of Annual Leave to help Henry get through these difficult times. But as you can see from the appeal for contributions posted in the National Section of this newsletter, the estimated need is over 600 hours. I urge everyone to be generous, whatever Annual Leave you can spare would be going to help a Flight Service brother in need.
WSI Arrives
September 11th saw installation begin on the WSI Weather Graphics System to replace our old, deteriorating Kavouras system. While the screens aren't as big as we'd hoped, they are much clearer and the list of available products is much larger than our old system. Our thanks go to RegDir Ward Simpson for his perseverance in getting Western-Pacific Regional management on board with this new system and also to HHR ATM Mike Lammes for insisting that it be installed before the AOPA Convention's opening on October 18th in Long Beach.
However, one major disappointment for many of us was the Visible Satellite Imagery's 4km resolution. It looks great on the national picture, but when zoomed in close to the So Cal coast, its clarity disappears as the image pixilates into something resembling an abstract painting in the Cubist style. It was somewhat irritating to learn that 2km resolution was given to the Eastern and Southern Region's facilities, as well as to Honolulu AFSS, while it was deemed that the rest of us wouldn't need to be able to see such "minor details" as the coastal marine layer clearly.
AOPA
The final schedule for those from HHR and RAL who will be doing mobile flight service station duties at the AOPA convention has been posted and final preparations are underway to see that our part goes as smoothly as possible. Kudos to Cynthia Reitz and HHR OM Bob Dean for all their hard work coordinating the personnel for this major event.
Back to Table of Contents
