dsee8driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 364
[font=arial,helvetica,geneva]The "REAL" Story On The Controller Shortage?[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Pilots Flee Frances...[/font]
[font=arial,helvetica,geneva]...A Litany Of Waste And Deception...[/font]
[font=arial,helvetica,geneva]...FAA Offers General Comments[/font]
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/faalogo5.gif FAA chief spokesman Greg Martin said the letter contained "troubling charges" but declined to comment on specific allegations. He did say many of the more general observations are well-known to the agency. He noted that in House testimony in June, the agency reported that air traffic controllers used more than 100 percent of their sick leave and the FAA has set a goal of reducing sick time by 8 percent (air purifiers, maybe). Martin said that's all part of the emphasis on productivity and performance that is in effect at the agency. "Our intent is to keep our system the safest in the world but also to invest taxpayers' money in the best ways possible," he said. Martin hinted there could be some fireworks ahead as the agency demands more productivity from employees. "We're being asked to do more and do it more smartly," he said. "When those tough decisions are made, our organization has to believe it has support at the highest level." Among the controversial programs being proposed is a computer system called CRU-X that monitors just how much time each controller spends working aircraft.
The following is the text of the anonymous letter sent to AVweb. It has been edited only to further protect the identity of its author:
I am a Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Controller assigned to a moderately busy, international air traffic control tower. I read your report on FAA controller staffing. I feel I must comment on the accuracy of the report.
I have been an air traffic controller for more than 20 years. I have worked at several control towers.
I disagree that air traffic control staffing is too low. At my present facility, my last facility and the facility before that, no air traffic controller was being overworked. In reality, air traffic controllers spend about four hours of an eight-hour shift actually working position. The other four hours are spent on break. Not a bad deal for someone making $40.00 an hour. You could ask the FAA for the "time on position" records for the air traffic controller workforce. I think what you will find is the en route centers and the really busy airports are the only facilities with any situation that resembles a staffing shortage. At the small facilities and most large facilities, there isn't any staffing shortage. When you read about the controllers' union being against the software program CRU-X, it is because CRU-X will document how much an air traffic controller actually spent working and how much he/she spent on break.
At my facility, all air traffic controllers are able to use every bit of the annual vacation time (5 1/2 weeks yearly). At my facility, air traffic controllers are allowed to "call in sick" any time they feel the need and are never asked to provide a doctor's note saying they were actually sick. Each controller is provided 2 1/2 weeks of sick leave yearly. It would be common for a controller to call in sick after he/she was not granted a vacation day. And the FAA doesn't do anything about it.
My facility has almost 20 different control positions. Yet, even on the busiest day, only 11 positions are opened. There are many times when there are more air traffic controllers on break than air traffic controllers working. Instead of opening positions, lowering controller workload and providing quality service, control positions are combined so controllers can get more break time. You should ask the FAA how many control positions are combined daily and why they were not opened.
In addition, most facilities allow the union's principal facility representative administrative time to conduct union business. The taxpayer/FAA pays the union representative's salary even though he/she doesn't have to work air traffic. If you consider how many union representatives there are, at least one at every FAA air traffic control facility, the total money spent paying controllers for not working is huge.
The controllers' union is staffed with very smart individuals. But these individuals do not have the best interest of the FAA in mind when they negotiate work rules. FAA managers have bargained away a lot of their management rights and the union isn't about to give them back. It takes a lot of time to train air traffic controllers but not necessarily because of the complexity of the job. We have a student that has been in training for six years. Between the union and the student's lawyers, the controller has been given another chance. The union is almost always successful in the defense of controllers who fail the training program. The union will build a compelling case how the FAA failed to properly train a controller and get the student reinstated in training. Now, it is union members that actually train controllers. FAA management doesn't provide any of the on-the-job training. Plus, student controllers can call in sick without risk of disciplinary action and are also entitled to their vacation time. At my facility, the highest-paid personnel are student controllers. We have one student controller who, while working live traffic, has had two near misses/losses of separation. These incidents occurred within a few months. Instead of firing the individual or assigning him to a slower facility, he is retained and given another chance.
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Pilots Flee Frances...[/font]
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/natca-logo.jpg The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) is emphatically declining comment on an anonymous letter sent to AVweb from an air traffic controller, challenging the union's contention that air safety is being jeopardized by a staff shortage throughout the system. AVweb sent a copy of the detailed missive to NATCA but the union refused to comment ... sort of. We can't tell you why it chose not to comment because the normally forthcoming union officials we contacted insisted that all communications regarding the letter be considered "off the record." So, with the objections raised by the union and the defensible rationale it used in choosing not to comment observed, in all fairness, so too shall be the original letter. Enter "Jane Doe," a veteran air traffic controller whose experience within the day-to-day environment of the ATC system is at once illuminating and troubling. (Note: Although Jane's identity and the tower she works at won't be revealed, AVweb has collected evidence to confirm that she is who she says she is.)
[font=arial,helvetica,geneva]...A Litany Of Waste And Deception...[/font]
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/mouth.gif In her letter, Jane alleges that ample staff members are available to handle the workload at her tower considering the number who are on breaks at any given time. She alleges that in an eight-hour shift most controllers will put in no more than four hours "on position." She also claims that management has virtually no authority over the unionized staff, some of whom ridicule and berate supervisors in front of co-workers. "FAA managers have bargained away a lot of their management rights and the union isn't about to give them back," Jane charges. Jane says controllers routinely use sick days (they are entitled to two and a half weeks a year) as extra vacation time and are unchallenged by supervisors. She said the union vigorously defends controllers who test positive for drug use and those who do spend a year doing other work until they can retake their medicals. "If they worked for practically anyone else, they'd be fired," Jane opined in an interview with AVweb.
[font=arial,helvetica,geneva]...FAA Offers General Comments[/font]
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/faalogo5.gif FAA chief spokesman Greg Martin said the letter contained "troubling charges" but declined to comment on specific allegations. He did say many of the more general observations are well-known to the agency. He noted that in House testimony in June, the agency reported that air traffic controllers used more than 100 percent of their sick leave and the FAA has set a goal of reducing sick time by 8 percent (air purifiers, maybe). Martin said that's all part of the emphasis on productivity and performance that is in effect at the agency. "Our intent is to keep our system the safest in the world but also to invest taxpayers' money in the best ways possible," he said. Martin hinted there could be some fireworks ahead as the agency demands more productivity from employees. "We're being asked to do more and do it more smartly," he said. "When those tough decisions are made, our organization has to believe it has support at the highest level." Among the controversial programs being proposed is a computer system called CRU-X that monitors just how much time each controller spends working aircraft.
The following is the text of the anonymous letter sent to AVweb. It has been edited only to further protect the identity of its author:
I am a Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Controller assigned to a moderately busy, international air traffic control tower. I read your report on FAA controller staffing. I feel I must comment on the accuracy of the report.
I have been an air traffic controller for more than 20 years. I have worked at several control towers.
I disagree that air traffic control staffing is too low. At my present facility, my last facility and the facility before that, no air traffic controller was being overworked. In reality, air traffic controllers spend about four hours of an eight-hour shift actually working position. The other four hours are spent on break. Not a bad deal for someone making $40.00 an hour. You could ask the FAA for the "time on position" records for the air traffic controller workforce. I think what you will find is the en route centers and the really busy airports are the only facilities with any situation that resembles a staffing shortage. At the small facilities and most large facilities, there isn't any staffing shortage. When you read about the controllers' union being against the software program CRU-X, it is because CRU-X will document how much an air traffic controller actually spent working and how much he/she spent on break.
At my facility, all air traffic controllers are able to use every bit of the annual vacation time (5 1/2 weeks yearly). At my facility, air traffic controllers are allowed to "call in sick" any time they feel the need and are never asked to provide a doctor's note saying they were actually sick. Each controller is provided 2 1/2 weeks of sick leave yearly. It would be common for a controller to call in sick after he/she was not granted a vacation day. And the FAA doesn't do anything about it.
My facility has almost 20 different control positions. Yet, even on the busiest day, only 11 positions are opened. There are many times when there are more air traffic controllers on break than air traffic controllers working. Instead of opening positions, lowering controller workload and providing quality service, control positions are combined so controllers can get more break time. You should ask the FAA how many control positions are combined daily and why they were not opened.
In addition, most facilities allow the union's principal facility representative administrative time to conduct union business. The taxpayer/FAA pays the union representative's salary even though he/she doesn't have to work air traffic. If you consider how many union representatives there are, at least one at every FAA air traffic control facility, the total money spent paying controllers for not working is huge.
The controllers' union is staffed with very smart individuals. But these individuals do not have the best interest of the FAA in mind when they negotiate work rules. FAA managers have bargained away a lot of their management rights and the union isn't about to give them back. It takes a lot of time to train air traffic controllers but not necessarily because of the complexity of the job. We have a student that has been in training for six years. Between the union and the student's lawyers, the controller has been given another chance. The union is almost always successful in the defense of controllers who fail the training program. The union will build a compelling case how the FAA failed to properly train a controller and get the student reinstated in training. Now, it is union members that actually train controllers. FAA management doesn't provide any of the on-the-job training. Plus, student controllers can call in sick without risk of disciplinary action and are also entitled to their vacation time. At my facility, the highest-paid personnel are student controllers. We have one student controller who, while working live traffic, has had two near misses/losses of separation. These incidents occurred within a few months. Instead of firing the individual or assigning him to a slower facility, he is retained and given another chance.