Table of Contents
105th Congress Takes Shape 105th Congress Takes Shape
Message from President Mac
From the Executive Director
A Talk With...
Aviation Weather Division
Chief Negotiator's Report
OASIS UPDATE
FSDPS UPDATE
A&A - ASKED AND ANSWERED
NAS VERSION 2.0 - THE NAATS VIEW
HEALTH AND SAFETY UPDATE
In the House, members of the appropriations subcommittee on transportation were named. This panel, which decides critical FAA funding issues, will have as its ranking Democrat Martin O. Sabo, (MN), a veteran of the appropriations process and someone familiar with the FAA. Todd Tiahrt (R), a second-termer from general aviation headquarters, Wichita, KS, was also named to the Subcommittee. In the Senate, aviation user fee advocate Sen. John McCain was formally named chairman of the aviation-critical Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology. McCain, who chaired the Aviation Subcommittee during the last Congress, can be expected to again push his schemes to levy new taxes, charges and fees on FAA's "services" to all segments of aviation. He turned over the subcommittee gavel to Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA), who can be counted on to listen most closely to Boeing.
Back in the House, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA) and 123 cosponsors reintroduced legislation to remove the aviation and three other transportation trust funds from the unified federal budget. Removal of these accounts from budget constraints is designed to increase spending on infrastructure programs--airports and navigation systems, for example--supported by dedicated revenues. Similar legislation passed the House in 1995 but stalled in the Senate. However, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has previously expressed his support of this concept, so the bill will probably move much further and much more quickly in the Senate this time around.
Of course, no new revenues are flowing into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund since Congress last year failed to agree on legislation to extend their December 31, 1996, expiration. Proposals to extend, modify or replace the now-expired airline ticket tax, avfuel taxes and other federal revenue-raisers are on hold pending final recommendations from at least two panels. In fact, NAATS is convinced this will be the aviation issue to confront the 105th Congress and is one which will pit general aviation and, perhaps, smaller carriers against the major airlines.
Despite its brief return on January 20, Congress will not get down to "real" legislative business
until after the State of the Union Address on February 4. As always, Irv Woods and I will be
closely monitoring Congressional activity on NAATS' behalf.
Back to Table of Contents
Message from President Mac
NAATS is looking for some one for the position of Treasurer; if you are interested please let
your director know and send me a brief resume of your qualifications for the position. No
later that February 28,1997. I will review all applicants and make my recommendation to the
Board of Directors.
Now for the news. I was invited so speak at a SUPCOM meeting in Washington DC. I was paneled with Barry Krasner (President of NATCA), and we both addressed questions from the SUPCOM representatives. Most of the questions I had were reference to the Future of Flights Service, and reassuring them that Flight Service has a Future in the FAA. Look for your Facility and regional SUPCOM rep's to talk more to NAATS about mutual concern in the FAA. SUPCOM has realized that the Future of Flight Service and NAATS goals for Flight Service affect their future and they believe that SUPCOM needs to support the same goals for Flight Service. I want to thank outgoing SUPCOM Chairman Steve Kelly and the new SUPCOM Chairman Bill Preston for the invitation to speak.
February is a pretty open month for me at this time; I have one meeting the end of the month, and possibility of a rescheduled NFPC meeting from January. Not much has happened over the Holidays.
Till next month.
Back to Table of Contents
Sometimes, however, you have to wonder exactly what they are thinking. On one hand, they have given a green light to OASIS (See Kurt Comisky's report in this edition of NAATS NEWS), and thus acknowledging the future of Flight Service. On the other hand, the NAS Version 2.0 assumes that the number of Flight Service Controllers will continue to shrink to a point where there simply will not be a sufficient number to handle the job (take a look at the NAATS Statement, also in this issue).
Thinking in a 15 year time span requires a bit of thinking outside of the box. 15 years ago, would you have assumed the incredible drop in computer costs per unit? Now, the FAA is assuming that over the next 15 years, the costs of communication will prevent providing each AFSS with data sufficient to support a newer and needed range of Flight Service duties - including the ability to locate and identify aircraft on our monitors. Do they evaluate trends in communication? Have they heard about fiber optics and the Internet and T-1 connections? Have they figured out that the unit costs of communicating will be dropping dramatically - as dramatically as the unit cost drops in computer operations?
The FAA needs to think carefully - and look at what the environment is telling us - when they make plans for the future. They need to understand that the limits of today might not be there in 15 years; they certainly need to begin training new Flight Service Controllers - today - to be available within the next few years. Comments? use the snail mail or the eMail, but send the mail.
Back to Table of Contents
This is the second of a series of interviews with NAATS leaders about their varied duties and
responsibilities on behalf of the membership. These interviews are designed to give you, the
reader, an idea about what these individuals are doing, and how they feel about their tasks.
More than just a news report, we hope that NAATS members will gain new insights about the
people who devote so much time and effort to NAATS. Our second interview is with Michael
"Mike" Doring, NAATS' Director of Labor Relations
NAATS NEWS: Mike, you've been with NAATS for more than 5 years now. What's been the biggest change you have seen in NAATS during your tenure?
Doring: I guess the biggest change is applicability - the knowledge of what to do and the thirst to get more, so that things can be done with better results. There was a want in the field and in the Board itself for knowledge. Through training and experience, we've moved to a higher level of unionism, and we'll continue on that road.
NAATS NEWS: Wally Pike is the Chief Negotiator for NAATS. How do you see the difference between your job and his?
Doring: Wally is also a controller, which I am not, and his knowledge of the actual job performance elements equips him and makes him better suited for negotiation on a day to day basis. He has the knowledge, and with him as lead, and me with the LMR knowledge, we fit together well. It's much more professional to have someone at the table who is extremely familiar with the operational issues, and me at his side for the LMR advice and guidance. It's working quite well.
NAATS NEWS: Tell us a little bit about your background. Where were you raised? How did you wind up as a Labor-Management relations consultant?
Doring: I'm a "Balto-moron." After my military service (Coast Guard), I started out in the Baltimore Ship Yard as an apprentice electrician. I got involved with the Metal Trades Council of AFL-CIO who represented the Shipyard Workers. Then I went to Procurement and Supply, and was President of the AFGE white collar union at the shipyard. Then I crossed over to management as a labor-relations specialist at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, for about 5 years. Then I was Labor Relations Officer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
In 1987, I started a company, Labor Information Services, and have been working for various unions ever since.
NAATS NEWS: What do you do to deal with the pressure and tension that comes with the territory of your job?
Doring: There's a lot of ways to relieve. Just joking and acting like an idiot to vent. You have to vent, you can't store it up. Having been in the game for more than 20 years, you learn not to take it home with you.
Some times, I just sit in front of the TV and watch old movies.
NAATS NEWS: We know you're a film fan. What's your most favorite recent movie?
Doring: Usual Suspects. It's a good one with a bunch of second rate actors.
NAATS NEWS: Last question. What do you see as the biggest challenge facing NAATS in the next year?
Doring: Contract negotiations. That's it. And also, increased membership for solidarity. With the
problems we face not only this year but future years, I just can' t understand why so many
bargaining unit members don't belong to the only organization that is fighting for their
employment and for their security.
Back to Table of Contents
Aviation Weather Division
Previously, the FAA focus on WX was 'scattered', with multiple programs throughout the Agency's bureaucracy controlled by many different FAA Divisions and Branches. Each had its own budget and politics and the FAA couldn't understand why almost nothing was getting done on time, near budget and actually working as advertised.
The WX Division's 50 employees, many from the Flight Service option, work for three Branches - Policy (ATR-210), System Effectiveness (ATR-220) and Requirements (ATR-230). There are more than 30 different areas that the division is accountable for. Some of the major ones include ASOS, TDWR, WARP, CWSU, ITWDS, NEXRAD, and WMSCR.
At this time, OASIS is not a part of the division. The weather requirements for OASIS were initially developed here and delivered up the food chain where they were promptly cut and slashed until they fit the COTS view of 'requirements'.
NAATS, as well as NATCA, were given the opportunity to appoint liaisons to this newly formed division. The FAA realizes that early NAATS input and understanding into their programs can speed the process of development and implementation. We agree.
Since we began the liaison process, NAATS has proposed many new and innovative ideas to the agency. FAA interest in some of our ideas has begun to grow and in one case, (FSS controllers augmenting and backing up ASOS, from the AFSS's) has been implemented. Another one of our ideas, (FSS controllers performing CWSU duties, from the AFSS) is under active consideration. NAATS is also involved in a successful demonstration project at the ATCSCC by having FSS controllers provide WX services to the facility. Other NAATS ideas being considered by the FAA include:
Back to Table of Contents
Chief Negotiator's Report
Why are we involved in so many W/Gs?
Our philosophy is that it's better to get in on the front end and try to influence the formulation of
the issue rather than to be strictly reactionary and bargain it after the proposal has been
completed.
Isn't there a danger in participating in these joint W/Gs?
I'm not sure where the danger lies. We don't waive any of our bargaining rights and frequently
there is less to bargain if the W/G functions properly. The idea is to get our unit members
involved in making the decisions that affect them. That's the same basic premise that drives the
NAATS/FAA Partnership.
What decision-making process is used in the W/G?
This varies according to the W/G. Obviously our clear preference is consensus based.
Aren't we always outnumbered on the W/Gs?
I suppose that argument could be made if everyone who isn't a NAATS representative is counted
as being on the other side. In fact, the participants usually come from several different disciplines
and it would be inaccurate to label them all as "management". The decision-making process
should level the playing field and, failing that, the bargaining process is a sure cure for any
distortions.
So we only need one representative on a particular W/G?
That used to be my feeling but I've changed a little. If the W/G is dealing with a really volatile,
sensitive issue then I try to get two representatives so that they can support each other. Otherwise
I feel one is sufficient.
Who selects our W/G representatives?
If the subject matter has a bargaining aspect, then I select. If not, then President McAnaw does. If
possible, we coordinate with each other. Of course the Board of Directors is the final authority.
Why do Directors serve as our representatives on so many W/Gs?
Both Mac and I look for the most knowledgeable reps we can find. This knowledge is preferred in
both union rights as well as subject matter expertise. Frequently, but not always, our most
knowledgeable people in these areas are our Directors. Mac and I are both committed to
involving all union members to the maximum extent that we can. I think we're doing better.
Does anyone in NAATS really have a handle on all these groups? Are their efforts coordinated?
The answer to both questions is "yes". Mac and I are both aware of all of our representatives to
the various W/Gs, the W/G charters, our goals and how the end products relate to and support
each other. NAATS W/G leaders are responsible, among other things, for keeping us briefed on
their progress and any problems.
How do I indicate that I want to serve on one of these groups?
Send your name, area of interest and qualifications to Mike McAnaw. Mac keeps the list of
volunteers and we refer to it when making selections.
Back to Table of Contents
OASIS UPDATE
Over the recent months the agency, with assistance from the Union, has concluded there is a need for Flight Service and that the agency must provide the service. (Look for further specifics from Ron Dawson and the Architecture Workgroup.) Furthermore, with our help, the agency has determined that there is a need to replace and upgrade our equipment. These are two milestones that I hope are not overlooked. By approving OASIS as a program, the agency has committed funding for this and in future years, there will be no need for an annual request for funding.
There were several recommendations presented to the JRC for OASIS. First, OASIS should be a service, whereas the agency will not own or lease the equipment. The requirement will be on performance and delivery of a product rather than specific equipment. The recommendation is for the service contract to extend for 10 to 15 years. This service contract should include provisions for technology upgrades. This presents a greater emphasis on the contract with the vendor to the extent of specific requirements and enforcement. Next, the recommendation was that the funds for OASIS come out of F&E rather than OPS. This is a win-win for the users, both internal and external. Remember these are recommendations only and subject to change.
As of this time, the marching orders for the procurement process is to install up to 61 AFSS (+AAL). There is the possibility this may change. (Ron Dawson's group). OASIS will provide vast amounts of additional information to the specialist. This and the human factors aspect makes the CHI even more important than ever. We are still in discussions with the agency on the workstation configuration.
For those FSDPS folks, I have been working with Scott Chapman. OASIS and the FSDPS issues are intertwined and involve generally the same agency people. Check [email protected].
As to future dates, the SIR2 document will be given in the first week of February to the two vendors identified for the next phase of the procurement process. This will include the statement of work (requirements) and mandatory items for the contract. The FAA will revisit the two vendors in early summer to perform the OCT, a functional test of OASIS. Look for a contract award in mid fall. (I believe we need to expedite the process, and I will convey our dissatisfaction.)
The acquisition strategy is still a work in process, and I will update you when it becomes available. There is a draft copy of the order of implementation floating around; contact your Regional Director. Remember, this is only the first cut draft. Generally the order is logical; however for the key site(s), there is a need for further justification - and politics are starting to play a role. The unofficial time frame for installation is up to three years for all sites.
The two critical questions have been answered. I will endeavor to answer the next round of
questions in upcoming articles. As always, any questions or comments please call.
Back to Table of Contents
FSDPS UPDATE
I am happy to report that the FSDPS list has been a success. Currently the following FSDPS sites
are represented: ZOA, ZBW, ZAU, ZTL, ZOB, ZNY, ZJX, ZDC, ZAB, ZMP, ZDV, ZSE. Some
sites are represented more so than others, but the list continues to grow. If you have not
subscribed to the list and wish to do so, send e-mail to:
leave the subject line blank, and in the body of your message put:
subscribe FSDPS (your name)
Your name or an alias is required. The list server will send a confirmation message which you
must reply to. Just forward the message back to the list server, leaving the subject line intact and
changing the body of the message to read:
OK
An important point to remember is this list is for an open forum on FSDPS issues and all are welcome, no matter what their affiliation is. As an option, you may send me an e-mail message indicating you would like to be a subscriber, and I will gladly add you to the list. If any one desires a transcript of all pervious messages, I can return a zipped archive (PC or MAC) as well.
The exchange of information and general chatter on the list has been a tremendous help for me. I want to think it has been for everyone else as well.
Thank you.
Back to Table of Contents
A&A - ASKED AND ANSWERED
Please explain the difference between a grievance and an unfair labor practice and when they should be used.
M - This fits nicely into my training next month. Grievances by definition are violations of the
contract.
W - Or conditions of employment such as policies or past practices.
M - Grievances are not necessarily bad things; they're the employee's way of disagreeing with an
action taken by management.
W - They're a tool to be used to correct a problem.
M - They shouldn't be used just for the fun of it, they should have a purpose.
W - That's why our contract contains a negotiated grievance procedure; to tell us when and how
to file grievances.
M - Grievances are both informal and formal. Ninety percent of all grievances are resolved at the
informal stage.
W - ULPs on the other hand are violations of the labor relations statue or, in other words, the
law.
M - There are eight violations listed for management in 7116 (a) of the law.
W - A violation of one of these eight should be filed as a ULP and not as a grievance.
M - Right, grievances are for contract or workplace violations, ULPs are for violations of the law,
specifically those eight discussed above.
W - Remember, you can file either a grievance or a ULP but not both on the same issue.
M - It can get confusing so remember if you believe you have a grievance or ULP and you have a
question, contact your Facrep or Regional Director for clarification.
Please send your questions to either Mike or me at NAATS HQ or eMail to me at
[email protected]. Please indicate whether we can use your name, facility and/or region.
Back to Table of Contents
NAS VERSION 2.0 - THE NAATS VIEW
The following is the text of a letter from NAATS to the FAA containing our views on NAS
Version 2.0:
[WEBMASTER'S NOTE: NAATS Minority Opinion on Future FSS Architecture is also available.]
Dr. George L. Donohue
Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Systems Architecture and Program Evaluation (ASD)
800 Independence Washington DC 20591
Dear Dr. Donohue:
On behalf of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), the exclusive representative of the men and women who form the corps of Flight Service Controllers, I am pleased to provide to you the following comments on National Airspace System Architecture Version 2.0.
Introduction
We understand that the NAS Architecture seeks to provide a balance of NAS elements to meet the needs of aviation in the next century. Necessarily, this presupposes changes of an evolutionary nature. We at NAATS have long called for evolutionary change, and have often been frustrated by the delays of recent years - particularly in the procurement and deployment of critical new systems. In this regard, we hope that the new procurement authority which the FAA enjoys will help expedite needed evolutionary change.
We remain concerned, however, about the nature of the process being utilized to strike the balance between NAS elements and the needs of the aviation community in the next century. This concern is based on two propositions. First, we believe that the FAA continues to be a captive of its own planning process. That is to say, planning for the future has become something of a cottage industry within the FAA, with many task forces, work groups, contractors and staff invested in the process. At times, it appears that the investment is more in the process than in the product. As a consequence, ideas which may be floated in a blue sky session suddenly appear to take on a life of their own, and because of the investment of so many individuals in the process, they often attain a degree of legitimacy unrelated to the origin of the recommendation.
Second, we are concerned that NAS Version 2.0 places insufficient emphasis on safety within the General Aviation sector in particular. We believe that before any change takes place, it is incumbent upon the change proponents to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that safety to the flying public will be enhanced. Change, be it evolutionary or revolutionary, is not a goal in and of itself. Our goal must remain safety first, last, and always.
As a final caveat to this introduction, I wish to reiterate that while NAATS representatives have participated in various work groups related to this project, the recommendations and conclusions of any or all of these work groups have never been endorsed by NAATS, and we have reserved the right to negotiate any changes proposed by the FAA as they impact Flight Service or the customers we serve, to the fullest extent of the law.
FLIGHT SERVICE PROVISIONS, Section 2.2.13
Our principle comments center on Section 2.2.13, Flight Services, since this is our primary area of concern.
2.2.13's introduction states that there are 17 Congressionally mandated auxiliaries. This is, of course, no longer the case, following the most recent Congressional action. We believe that the final sentence of the introduction should be amended to read as follows (change underscored and in bold):
"The FAA is continuing to work to identify the most effective means for providing flight services, in light of safety, budget pressures, prospective advances in technology, the ability of the user committee to assimilate new technology, and user/organizational concerns." These changes would make clear the paramount requirement for change in the NAS architecture: safety is the first consideration.
2.2.13.1 contains the statement that "pre-flight briefings" and filings are available on a walk-in basis and by telephone. With the consolidation into the AFSS system, the walk-in process has (unfortunately) essentially disappeared. This correction needs to be made.
Much more significantly, the document states that these services - including pre-flight briefings - are "also available through Direct User Access Terminal Service." This statement is erroneous, and is a restatement of the outrageous misinformation foisted upon the public by DUATS contractors that a DUATS "briefing" is the same as what the customer receives in a Flight Service pilot briefing. It is bad enough when the DUATS vendors claim that they provide the same service as Flight Service (for obvious financial purposes). But when the FAA itself says that Flight Service is an equivalent of DUATS, the statement reveals an embarrassing lack of understanding about Flight Service by FAA leaders.
2.2.13.2, the Proposed Architecture, assumes that pilots will become "self-reliant." Reality now, however, is that there is a generation of pilots who cannot stop their VCR's from flashing "12:00!" Yet the authors assume that all of these people will become computer literate, that they will learn how to read and interpret weather information without assistance, and that their equipment will function without breakdown. It is an irrational assumption.
The proposed architecture states that the intent is to reduce the amount of time being spent on pre-flight briefings and to "focus" more on providing "critical inflight services." An interesting choice of words. As we read the document, the FAA plans to eliminate most preflight service by Flight Service employees. The "focus" increases on inflight because preflight service is eliminated! Only in this way can the number of specialists be reduced by more than 50% from the current already understaffed level.
The proposal argues that since the introduction of DUATS, the number of Flight Service transactions provided by the FAA has been reduced by 50%. There is no evidence of cause and effect. It is much more likely that the number of preflight services has gone down because of the AFSS consolidation, the loss of 500 air traffic specialists, and the loss of "walk in" briefings than anything to do with DUATS. The case can be made - and made easily - that a reduction in the number of preflight services is the direct result of less and more difficult access to specialists. When access is restricted, when lines are busy, when delays are inherent because of inadequate supply, it is not surprising that customers are turned off and seek other, less complete sources of information. If the proposed reduction of 800 telephone lines servicing AFSS's takes place (over our vigorous objection), we can assume that the corollary reduction in Flight Services will be ascribed to an increased use of DUATS as well, and not to the obvious reason: a reduction of access by pilots to Flight Service.
We are pleased to note that this section assumes that OASIS will provide services of the current DUATS program. The incorporation of DUATS into Flight Service has been a goal of NAATS for many years. The next step - interactivity between the briefer and the customer, is an aspect of OASIS which must be implemented as soon as possible. It should be noted that the assumption made in this section that the number of one-on-one briefings will decline though more DUATS-type services may not necessarily be correct. We may well reach a point of diminishing returns with the customers when we approach the limit of computer and weather knowledge necessary among the pilot community to properly utilize data so transmitted.
On the other hand, we are disappointed with the conclusion that in-flight services will become aligned with the Air Route Traffic Control Centers, and that Flight Service personnel need to be transferred to those locations. The evidence of history is clear: as the consolidation process was implemented, the customers have turned to alternative service providers or simply have gone without vital safety services. Further consolidation of Flight Service into ARTCC's will only hasten this decline in service. This would be particularly troublesome for in-flight assistance, where knowledge of local conditions is, if anything, even more important than for briefing purposes alone. Again, we seriously question the extent to which the safety criterion has been considered in connection with this conclusion.
Finally, this section assumes a significant reduction in numbers of Flight Service personnel. We would note that the traffic will, according to FAA projections, remain essentially constant. If this is the case, it must be recognized that this document assumes a reduction of more than one-half of current Flight Service personnel. Traffic remains constant; the number of services which one specialist can provide has an upper limit. Inevitably, service to the customer would suffer, as would safety.
Section 2.2.13.2 sets forth a series of so-called "options" to the proposed architecture discussed above. The first would continue all existing services, with a workforce remaining at current levels. The second option assumes enhanced pilot "self reliance" and work force attrition to the year 2000, and remaining essentially constant thereafter. The third would be an aggressive privatization of Flight Service, and the elimination of FAA Flight Service by the year 2010. None of these options investigates the future from two important perspectives: what is the nature of future demand, and how can service to the customer and safety be enhanced?
With the stress on streamlining, downsizing, and cost-cutting, this document simply fails to take into consideration the fact that the demands for flight services may actually increase in the future, particularly with the growth of commercial and general aviation in the future. As commercial aviation traffic escalates, there will inevitably be an increase in general aviation traffic as well. This is ignored and assumed away in this document. Second, this architecture proposal focuses on how we can provide a current level of service with fewer people at a lower cost . However, with the incredible reduction in the cost of computer transactions and the related reduction in communication costs anticipated over the next decades, the FAA should instead be considering how it can provide new and enhanced services - at a price below that which we pay today - to a public which will demand more and better safety assistance. The information and technological revolutions under way now should lead the FAA in another direction: the question is not how we can do as much with less; the question should be how we can do more and do it better at a more reasonable price. The answer to this question is also the answer to our mission: safety.
Section 2.2.13.4 sets forth the rationale for the reduction in Flight Service staff to 1,000 positions within twenty years. While the section states that there is "widespread belief" that enhanced automation will "dramatically improve specialist productivity" and that we will need "fewer specialists to brief as many pilots," we have seen no evidence to support either assumption. The OASIS system, which looks like it will be the main operational system within the planning horizon, does not offer the ability to brief more pilots in less time. Because it offers more information (and the opportunity to provide more important data to the pilot), briefings may take even longer than they currently do. And while we do not deny that increased productivity among the workforce is possible, we question whether reducing the workforce by one-half or more can be balanced by increased productivity, particularly when it is acknowledged that so many senior (and most productive) employees are nearing retirement. Because there is no employment pipeline established to replace these valued employees, productivity gains will be limited in the next decade.
SERVICE MODEL DESCRIPTION
7.2 NAS Air Traffic Operations
The NAS Model divides NAS Air Traffic Operations into five services: Flight Planning, NAS Flight Support, Aircraft Navigation & Guidance, NAS Traffic Management, and Separation. We are greatly heartened to note that Architecture Version 2.0 appears to fully incorporate the activities of Flight Service into Air Traffic Operations. It would be entirely inappropriate to segregate Flight Service from Tower and Center activities of Air Traffic, and the inclusion of Flight Service so prominently in Section 7.2 underscores the fact that our activities are part and parcel of Air Traffic operations.
Obviously, Flight Service plays a critical, if not principle role, in Flight Planning. Similarly, we at Flight Service have major roles in Flight Support (in flight monitoring and emergency assistance). In the area of navigation and guidance, we would note that the introduction of GPS technology within the planning horizon means that Flight Service will be in a position to expand the level of service - and the level of safety - it currently provides to its customers.
Significantly, Architecture Version 2.0 groups several critical Flight Service functions within the service entitled Separation - without making any overt recognition that Flight Service Controllers are actively involved in all of the separation functions except the function of separating aircraft from other aircraft. We believe that it is important to note that aircraft need to be separated from terrain, obstacles, Special Use Airspace, and severe weather - in addition to being separated from other aircraft. For years, Flight Service Controllers have been denigrated by the canard that we do not separate "live traffic." In fact, Flight Service Controllers are actively engaged in the separation of live traffic from a series of potential flight safety conflicts, and we believe that the next iteration of the NAS Architecture should so indicate - in no uncertain terms.
7.3 Weather Data Management
Obviously, we in Flight Service have a significant stake in weather data management, acquisition of weather data, dissemination of weather data, and archiving of such data. With the introduction of OASIS in the next several years, we anticipate that our role in weather data will be enhanced, because of the ability to provide our customers with more and different products. Changes in the relationship between the FAA and the National Weather Service in the near future may also enhance the weather role of Flight Service personnel.
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Several items should be specifically addressed as we look to the future. First, we must recognize that as technology advances, the users of technology may or may not learn how to use the new technology appropriately and safely. For example, reliance upon contractor-provided Direct User Access service assumes that the users (pilots) are or will be proficient in understanding not only the technology but the information provided. The ability to transmit weather data or to record flight plans via a DUATs-type service does not mean that user can be cut free from the experienced weather briefer. This is particularly true in situations where weather is changing, or where an understanding of weather trends is needed to make weather depictions understandable. As we have stated before, we will state again: a DUATS download is not the same as a preflight briefing by an experienced Flight Service Controller.
Second, we expect that OASIS will include the ability for the briefer and the pilot to engage in an interactive DUATS-type briefing. This will provide the ability to discuss the DUATS-type information in a manner which supplements to the briefing - and not one which offers less service in lieu of a briefing.
Third, we assume that the deployment of OASIS will cure one particular problem now experienced with the Model 1 Full Capacity (M1FC) system: the lack of ability to store sufficient data to establish significant weather trends.
This is an exciting time for Flight Service. The acquisition and deployment of OASIS offers a tremendous opportunity to expand our services to the flying public at a lower cost. It is imperative, in our opinion, to make sure that future versions of the NAS Architecture take this procurement into consideration. This "in-the-pipeline" procurement will provide the potential of adding new functionalities to the NAS.
We believe that the Architecture needs to take the human factor more into account. Talk about functionality and services tends to ignore the fact that these are provided by and through human beings who must be hired, trained, appropriately compensated, and for whom a rewarding career of service - in the best of possible working conditions - is no less important to the success of the NAS that any flow chart of activities.
Finally, future editions of the Architecture should include a critical, non-financial measuring stick: that of safety performance. A basic principle of the architecture should be that no change will be contemplated unless and until it can be established that the change will enhance safety. As Administrator Hinson stated in his October speech before the National Press Club, we will have to improve safety in the next twenty years by the same factor that safety was improved in the last thirty years. Such safety enhancement cannot take place unless the architecture of the system takes safety into account as the highest priority.
.
Sincerely,
Back to Table of Contents
HEALTH AND SAFETY UPDATE
57-07 The Employer at each facility shall annually review fire procedures with all personnel and provide training in the operation of fire extinguishers and other related equipment at the facility. Fire evacuation plans shall be conspicuously displayed and reviewed with every employee. Assistance from local fire departments may be utilized in developing evacuation plans.
57-08 The Employer shall establish formally locally administered first aid training and CPR courses. CPR courses are to be repeated in accordance with the American Red Cross requirements for annual update training. The number of employees to be trained shall be at least one per crew. but in no case less than one per facility.
The FAA just issued a memorandum which states that recent OSHA inspections of Air Traffic Control Facilities have found identical deficiencies in emergency evacuation fire prevention plans, fire drills and/or documentation of fire drills; and, evacuation procedures. The memorandum instructs facilities to reevaluate their facility operational procedures relative to OSHA safety requirements. If your facility does have a functioning safety committee, this could be an issue to address.
ASBESTOS UPDATE--Good to know information
Recently, the FAA came out with proposed medical surveillance requirements for employees following unanticipated releases of asbestos containing dust. I was assured by my Regional Safety Manager that our automated flight service stations should not contain any asbestos materials, but, if you used to work at one of the older FSS buildings and any type of construction or remodeling was completed, or if there was any natural occurrence such as an earthquake, vibration due to heavy ground or air traffic, etc., then this new policy could affect you.
A key term to remember is "bystander employees." This is a term the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has initiated to describe those workers whose job duties require them to occasionally work near or adjacent to other workers engaged in asbestos abatement or in maintenance activities involving asbestos containing materials (ACM). The FAA's air traffic controllers, employed in facilities where occasional asbestos-related construction activities take place, are examples of bystander employees under the OSHA standard. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, removal of asbestos containing insulation materials, repairing or replacing damaged ACM, and maintenance of air handling units in areas where ACM could be disturbed.
In accordance with OSHA, the FAA's policy is that full-scale medical surveillance is indicated for bystander employees only when they have received exposures to airborne asbestos fibers at or above the OSHA permissible exposure limits (PEL's) for a combined total of 30 days or longer per year, as demonstrated by breathing zone air samples which have been analyzed via phase contrast microscopy (PCM). This requirement applies independent of whether or not bystander employees have been assigned respirators.
Collection of valid employee data during most unanticipated releases of asbestos containing dust
will be a rare occurrence, because of their inherent unpredictability. Because of this, a facility
contingency plan should be in place prior to undertaking Class I, II, or Ill asbestos work as
defined by the asbestos standard for construction, and should include details about when to
initiate personal air monitoring of bystander employees. Only personal monitoring collected in
accordance with OSHA-approved methods legitimately can be used for comparison with OSHA
employee exposure limits. This means the sampling cassette (filter) is actually placed within an
employee's breathing zone, usually designated as within one foot of the employee's head, on
representative employees. Area or environmental monitoring that is commonly done to verify the
adequacy of containment controls during asbestos abatement work, while informative, shall not be
used as surrogate employee exposures-
OSHECOM UPDATES
Please, all regional NAATS OSH representatives: when you do have your regional OSHECOM
meeting, please provide me with a copy of the meeting minutes as soon as possible, so that I can
make my reports to the National OSHECOM. Also, I would like to know what sort of committee
safety training you received and what the RPMES plans on for the field committees. This is very
crucial in setting up productive field safety committees. If you have not received your copy of the
workshop I put together about safety committees, let me know as soon as possible and I will send
you one immediately. My goal is to make sure each flight service station has a functioning and
trained safety committee and I do need your assistance in completing this goal. Remember, safety
saves lives!
Back to Table of Contents
NAATS 11303 Amherst Avenue Suite 4 Wheaton, MD 20902 301/933-6228 301/933-3902 fax Gary D. Simms, Executive Director
