The "REAL" Story On The Controller Shortage?
Pilots Flee Frances...
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.)
...A Litany Of Waste And Deception...
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.
...FAA Offers General Comments
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.
Drug Use. At my facility alone, three air traffic controllers have, over the recent years, tested positive for illegal drug use. Now any other employer would fire them. Not the FAA. At the FAA, when you test positive for drug use, you are protected. The FAA will not tell anyone that you are using illegal drugs. You will be retained. They will not fire you. You will get all the pay raises you would have otherwise gotten. And, instead of working air traffic, the FAA will find some "no brainer" task for you to do over the year your medical clearance is suspended.
At my airport, the FAA controllers are the only employees not in jeopardy of losing their jobs or having their pay cut. While this nation's airlines are going bankrupt, air traffic controllers are enjoying large salaries, pay raises, lots of vacation time and few demands at work.
My facility has a higher than average number of near misses due to controller error. When local FAA management tried to correct the problem by opening more control positions, the controllers' union successfully prevented that action. My facility has an award program that gives each controller a four-hour time-off award when the facility goes six months without a near miss. We have not received that award in a couple of years because we have so many errors. The only safety step the controllers' union allowed local FAA management to implement was banning the use of cellphones while controllers are working live traffic. In reality, that order isn't even enforced. Controllers will often answer their cellphones while working air traffic. In fact, it is common for air controllers to read books and magazines while working position and to tackle the crossword puzzle while working live traffic. Most of the near misses we have are when controllers are performing controller-in-charge duties.
We had a near miss once when the weather was so bad, no planes could land at the airport. There where 14 controllers on duty but only four were working. The controller who had the near miss was busy putting planes in holding patterns and issuing new clearances to divert airports. The controller in charge was not paying attention. This error could have been prevented by putting to work all the controllers on duty. Instead, 10 controllers are watching television while four controllers are busy.
The controllers' union negotiated schedule changes/swaps that allow controllers to ask to work a different shift than assigned. This policy, no matter how well-intentioned, creates shift staffing imbalances. Most controllers do not like working night shifts. My facility allows controllers to change from the night shift to a day shift as long as the basic minimum staff remains behind to work the night shift. Then, like clockwork, a few people will call in sick on the night shift. The result is, twice the required staffing on the day shift and the night shift is understaffed. This happens so much that FAA management will not pay overtime to build up staffing on the now short night shift. This is common.
Controllers are arrogant. I have witnessed controllers demeaning supervisors, managers and staff specialists with no disciplinary action results. Present-day working conditions, the rude and arrogant attitudes of the controller workforce remind me how it was on the eve of the PATCO controller strike. Today, only FAA management treats employees with kindness. Controllers generally dislike authority and with the union protecting them, show little respect for management or other controllers.
I think you would be shocked how controllers dress for work. Flip flops, shorts, and tee-shirts are the dress of most days.
I think the union does a great job of projecting an image of caring air traffic controllers worried only about air safety. In reality, I don't think safety is a huge concern. The union is opposed to opening control positions even when people are sitting around with nothing to do. I think the unions is more about protecting the rights of controllers that use drugs, protecting controllers that call in sick when the cannot get the day off, and getting every controller more money.
At my facility, controller base pay is between $87,000.00 and $106,000.00. Controllers are paid extra if they have to work after 6 p.m. to train another controller or perform controller-in-charge duties. On average, controllers can boost their annual salaries 15 percent by training other controllers, working after 6 p.m. and working on Sunday and holidays.
I will respond to any e-mail request from you or your organization. I cannot tell you my name because if the controller's union found out, I would be in big trouble. I think it is about time the pubic and the taxpayers learned what is happening to their air traffic control system.
The "REAL" Story On The Controller Shortage?
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Some of what this woman talks about is typical of any large unionized or government employer. But much is not.
Large unions are often able to effectively defend problem employees against disciplinary action using their collective expertise and resources. Thats their job. It's not the union's job to decide who deserves their help. If you pay dues, you get representation unless your case clearly can't be won. However, no matter how strong the union, they can not defend an employee against appropriate and justifiable discipline if management has correctly fulfilled their duties in the matter.
Union contracts define benefits for employees and place restrictions on what the employer can do regarding working conditions. Anytime an issue arises in the workplace for which contract language does not exist, the employer is free to do what they want within the parameters of the applicable labour laws. Contracts DO NOT define rights of the employer, rather, the employer is assumed to have a right unless it is specifically limited by contract language or law.
Therefore, if the controllers have contract provisions that render the employer a "lame duck" in matters such as staffing levels, managing absenteeism, disciplining insubordinate employees, etc, it is not the fault of the union. Rather, the FAA should be taking a hard look at the employement status of the meathead negotiators who agreed to those contract clauses.
Management is responsible for the quality of the workplace culture; it's a fundemental function of leadership. If you have a bunch of cynical employees who abuse benefits and work against management it raises, for me, two questions. 1. Who hired these people? 2. If good people were hired, what caused them to go bad? The answer to both questions rests solely with management. There's a leadership maxim I learned many years ago, "If you have problems with your subordinates, the cause can be found in a mirror."
Large unions are often able to effectively defend problem employees against disciplinary action using their collective expertise and resources. Thats their job. It's not the union's job to decide who deserves their help. If you pay dues, you get representation unless your case clearly can't be won. However, no matter how strong the union, they can not defend an employee against appropriate and justifiable discipline if management has correctly fulfilled their duties in the matter.
Union contracts define benefits for employees and place restrictions on what the employer can do regarding working conditions. Anytime an issue arises in the workplace for which contract language does not exist, the employer is free to do what they want within the parameters of the applicable labour laws. Contracts DO NOT define rights of the employer, rather, the employer is assumed to have a right unless it is specifically limited by contract language or law.
Therefore, if the controllers have contract provisions that render the employer a "lame duck" in matters such as staffing levels, managing absenteeism, disciplining insubordinate employees, etc, it is not the fault of the union. Rather, the FAA should be taking a hard look at the employement status of the meathead negotiators who agreed to those contract clauses.
Management is responsible for the quality of the workplace culture; it's a fundemental function of leadership. If you have a bunch of cynical employees who abuse benefits and work against management it raises, for me, two questions. 1. Who hired these people? 2. If good people were hired, what caused them to go bad? The answer to both questions rests solely with management. There's a leadership maxim I learned many years ago, "If you have problems with your subordinates, the cause can be found in a mirror."
Bearing in mind this is the american version of the ATC story I can't help but notice the similarities to Nav Canada. I agree that blame has to rest on management for letting the situation get to this. But we have to wonder- what type of people take advantage of the "system" to this extent. To repeat the above; how did these good people turn bad?
One of the worst places, at least where I fly, is Edmonton. Can any ATC type honestly explain what causes us to wait for 5 minute separation between departures on a CAVU day? Or "flow control" that doesn't allow you to request a flow time on landing...but only allows you to get in the queue after boarding passengers and starting up?
This seriously has to be fixed, as we airline employees are the ones that bear the brunt for the waste that Nav Canada forces upon our companies. The wasted fuel, passenger inconvenience, wasted time and resources ends up directy affecting, and I mean DIRECTLY AFFECTING the amount of money our companies can afford to pay us.
So STOP IT. Our national ANS is just another ill-conceived privatization experiment that has gone seriously wrong. Along with our utilities and airports I think at this point most of us can agree that any legislated monopoly should be controlled by the government and not a private company with a worthless mandate to be "non-profit".
One of the worst places, at least where I fly, is Edmonton. Can any ATC type honestly explain what causes us to wait for 5 minute separation between departures on a CAVU day? Or "flow control" that doesn't allow you to request a flow time on landing...but only allows you to get in the queue after boarding passengers and starting up?
This seriously has to be fixed, as we airline employees are the ones that bear the brunt for the waste that Nav Canada forces upon our companies. The wasted fuel, passenger inconvenience, wasted time and resources ends up directy affecting, and I mean DIRECTLY AFFECTING the amount of money our companies can afford to pay us.
So STOP IT. Our national ANS is just another ill-conceived privatization experiment that has gone seriously wrong. Along with our utilities and airports I think at this point most of us can agree that any legislated monopoly should be controlled by the government and not a private company with a worthless mandate to be "non-profit".
I think it's absolutely hilarious when union people defend abuses by unions with the rationale, "it's managements fault for yielding to our demands which give us this power to be abusive"
That makes about as much sense as blaming a rape on a woman because it was her fault that she was female. From the rapist's standpoint, it was her fault that she had a v*gina. If she didn't have a v*gina, then the rapist wouldn't have raped her, so it's obviously the rape victim's fault that she got raped.
Keep paying your union dues, guys. btw, the hurricane's in Florida are management's fault too, eh?
That makes about as much sense as blaming a rape on a woman because it was her fault that she was female. From the rapist's standpoint, it was her fault that she had a v*gina. If she didn't have a v*gina, then the rapist wouldn't have raped her, so it's obviously the rape victim's fault that she got raped.
Keep paying your union dues, guys. btw, the hurricane's in Florida are management's fault too, eh?
Two points to consider:
1) Anonymous FAA Controller??? Come on give me a break. Put your name or your specious claims or @#$! off. Could be a manager or a disgruntled EX-trainee - who knows. This type of BS is the equivilent of Tabloid gossip - pure unsubstantiated sensationalism. Makes for good copy (and bird cage liners) - nothing more.
2) We will most likely never hear what really goes on in Can on a site like this. You will most likely never hear it from a REAL, actual controller - not in any detail anyway. They are prohibited from any public comment under penalty of termination. Find one you can talk to in person and who will talk, and I bet you' find out why YEG is so bad. You won't find out here though. Of course then it just be "I met this guy who says etc etc" so refer to point 1 and you'll see the problem.
1) Anonymous FAA Controller??? Come on give me a break. Put your name or your specious claims or @#$! off. Could be a manager or a disgruntled EX-trainee - who knows. This type of BS is the equivilent of Tabloid gossip - pure unsubstantiated sensationalism. Makes for good copy (and bird cage liners) - nothing more.
2) We will most likely never hear what really goes on in Can on a site like this. You will most likely never hear it from a REAL, actual controller - not in any detail anyway. They are prohibited from any public comment under penalty of termination. Find one you can talk to in person and who will talk, and I bet you' find out why YEG is so bad. You won't find out here though. Of course then it just be "I met this guy who says etc etc" so refer to point 1 and you'll see the problem.
HZ2P, you need to change your analogy a little. A better one would be the slut who willingly pulls a train because it will get her a few free drinks right now, later finds out she unwittingly got pregnant, and then cries rape.
No union member can get away with what this women is describing without managment profoundly failing in their responsibilities; either at the negotiating table, the worksite, or both.
I have several friends who are NavCan controllers, some in management. They describe much the same environment regarding abuse of benefits, sick time, etc. They've never mentioned anything impacting safety.
No union member can get away with what this women is describing without managment profoundly failing in their responsibilities; either at the negotiating table, the worksite, or both.
I have several friends who are NavCan controllers, some in management. They describe much the same environment regarding abuse of benefits, sick time, etc. They've never mentioned anything impacting safety.
Wilbur, in Canada there are no controllers in management positions - only ex-controllers. As always, once someone crosses that fence their interests and perspectives change - ever more and more the more time away.
As in any large group of any profession, I do not doubt there will be examples of "bad apples". However in the context of this discussion, I seriously doubt - make that I know - the real truth will never be posted credibly by anyone with first hand and current experience.
The only post I would consider credible in this vein is the one that has a REAL name attached - - - and that isn't going to happen.
As in any large group of any profession, I do not doubt there will be examples of "bad apples". However in the context of this discussion, I seriously doubt - make that I know - the real truth will never be posted credibly by anyone with first hand and current experience.
The only post I would consider credible in this vein is the one that has a REAL name attached - - - and that isn't going to happen.
Not to beat a very dead horse, but here is the NATCA reply to the previous anonymous drivel...
Dear AvWeb,
My name is John Carr. I am president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA,) and I represent slightly over 20,000 aviation safety related professionals at the FAA, Department of Defense and in the private sector. One of my largest bargaining units is the air traffic controller bargaining unit, numbering somewhere near 15,000 on any given day.
I am writing to address the issues raised in the anonymous letter you printed on September 9th from one "Jane Doe," allegedly an air traffic controller. Leaving aside for a moment the propriety of printing anonymous letters, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on and challenge virtually every assertion made by your ghost letter writer.
I must begin with a moment of clarity for your readers. NATCA advised you that we would be happy to grant interviews with you on any of the topics contained in the letter, but that we did not see the value in commenting on anonymous accusations about unidentified facilities. Therefore, your characterization that we emphatically declined to comment is unfortunately not accurate. That's a shame. We think your readers would have liked to know our positions on the issues raised. That's why I am writing today. The following are the facts.
First and foremost, every AvWeb reader should be shocked and, frankly, quite concerned about the remarks attributed to FAA spokesman Greg Martin. Incredibly enough, Martin believes an anonymous letter with no investigation, no corroboration, no evidence and no due process constitutes "troubling charges" that are "well known to the agency." If they are well known to the agency and the agency has done nothing about them, then agency officials responsible for such malfeasance should be removed from office immediately for dereliction of duty. Absent such affirmative action I will assume these anonymous and unsubstantiated charges are without merit or the agency is incompetent, inept and unable to manage their own affairs.
Second, Martin alleges CRU-X is controversial. What Martin does not report---probably because his superiors don't think he needs to know it---is that I have personally offered both Marion Blakey and Russ Chew the opportunity to turn CRU-X on immediately at every facility in the nation, without bargaining or union participation. The only caveat I have asked for in return is that it be done at every facility. Curiously enough, both Blakey and Chew have refused my more than generous offer. Why? Because CRU-X does not work. It does not work at large facilities, it does not work at medium sized facilities and it is only marginally efficient at small facilities. CRU-X is controversial because the agency tried to create a boutique computer program using lightweight software (Microsoft Access,) and their productivity product is crash-prone, buggy and unsuitable for nationwide implementation. The fact that the FAA still has the DOT Inspector General buffaloed concerning CRU-X ranks right up there with "Who Shot JR?" on the list of all-time good summer mysteries.
Now, to the text of your phantom pen pal's letter. She opens by claiming that no controller has been overworked at her last three facilities. Her remarks in this regard are telling from several perspectives. First, almost no controller refers to himself or herself as an "air traffic controller." We call ourselves just plain controllers, because we assume you know that there are no other kinds. Your author refers to controllers in the third person in much of her letter, which is also very telling. Controllers say "I," and "we." They rarely speak, Mr. T-like, in the third person when referring to themselves. For these reasons I doubt seriously that your letter writer is an active controller. Oh, she may have been one and might be in management or she could be one of those training failures she rails so mightily about, but I doubt that she's pushed much tin in her life.
Ms. Anonymous disagrees that staffing is too low. What Anonymous doesn't offer is any definitive proof concerning her claims. My organization is on record regarding the staffing issue, and as luck would have it we have no less an authority that the FAA Administrator, the GAO and the DOT IG as our proof points. Each of the three has testified regarding the looming staffing crisis. The fact that a single controller in a single facility disagrees isn't news. What is news is that we are already seeing staffing shortages occur. And what is also news is that when you increase staff to levels that the FAA actually requires, operational errors decline, or, simply put, safety increases.
Anonymous mentions time on position as if it is the Holy Grail of productivity measurements. Imagine my surprise in discovering that nothing could be further from the truth. Controllers do training, briefings, mandatory recurrency regimens and a whole host of other things that, while considered productive time, are not recorded as being "on position." Four hours on position plus two hours of non-position work is six hours a day. Allowing for two breaks and a lunch there isn't much time unaccounted for. I will also add that you probably don't want controllers staring at the ol' radar scope for more than about two hours on position without a break, a standard which the FAA agrees to, lest attentiveness wander and mental acuity fade (as all the research on the subject suggests it will.)
Stop the presses if you think using vacation time is newsworthy. Even the draconian FAA recognizes that employee vacation time is an earned right, not a privilege, and it is requested by the employee, approved by management, and used at the discretion of the controller. Anonymous makes it sound like a scandal. Sorry., . Using vacation time for a vacation is pretty much how things are done out here in the big world.
I am very grateful that your mystery scribe mentioned sick leave, because there is a misconception concerning sick leave that exists at the very highest levels of the agency. You see, controllers are drug tested, alcohol tested, vision tested, mentally tested, and are prohibited from working while taking a whole host of over the counter medications, including such medicine cabinet standards as NyQuil and Sudafed. This is appropriate, and as it should be.
I assure you that you do not want a controller working the noon balloon into Chicago O'Hare -- or anywhere else for that matter -- who's-reaction-time-is-slowed-by-the-effects-of-medication. To be blunt with you, working controllers longer, older and sicker is not only bad public policy but dangerous and unsafe. That moment of hesitation you sacrifice might be the difference between a safe operation and a thin pink mist at thirty thousand feet.
Anonymous did make one very salient and I believe correct point. The controllers union is staffed with very smart individuals. We take the safety of the flying public as our sacred trust, and we have an eighteen-year record of accomplishment in this regard. We have always been at the forefront of modernization, procedural innovation, technological introduction and productivity improvement. Our record of achievement can be abundantly documented in congressional testimony, memorandums of understanding, flexible work rules that allow for additional duties and contract after contract reached in good faith with our employer.
Anonymous allegations regarding drug use are troubling. I trust she has communicated them with the appropriate legal authorities for proper investigation and adjudication. The FAA has one of the lowest recorded drug use rates in the world, statistics readily available to anyone with the wherewithal to check. While Anonymous waxes philosophical about the protections offered these troubled individuals she ignores and even tramples on their rights to due process and rehabilitation. I can only hope she is in perfect mental and physical health for the duration of her career, lest someone suggest she, too be fired (although from the text of her letter the former is certainly in doubt.) Neither the FAA nor NATCA condones drug use, on or off duty. When it is discovered, by the very stringent protocols to which we are all subjected, the law takes over. It's pathetic and a little sad that such fair treatment escapes Anonymous' notice in her rush to judgment.
If controllers seem to Anonymous as arrogant, it's because controllers are taught to be right, 100% of the time, in 100% of the decisions that they make. Such training creates a certain foxhole mentality in towers and radar rooms, but it is no different in other high stress, high tech and high-pressure occupations, like police and firefighters. Is there a certain mental toughness required to perform the job? Absolutely. Is that something you want when you are hurtling through space in a Pringles tube full of jet fuel at five hundred miles an hour and someone else is making life and death decisions for you? I think so.
How controllers dress for work is immaterial to performance, but since she mentioned it I will cover it nonetheless. The dress code for controllers is negotiated between union and management. While I appreciate Anonymous' fashion sense she has no clue regarding what the employer thinks is appropriate work attire. Perhaps she could sit down with Greg Martin and hash that one out. While I doubt that a snappy Versace ensemble with matching broach and shoes will make one a better controller, I'm always willing to try new and innovative techniques.
Anonymouscloses by mentioning controller pay. I must assume from her tone and tenor she believes herself to be overpaid, and I anxiously await your research into what she does with these excess purloined wages. Does she do like Congressman DeFazio, and fund scholarships with her pay raises? Does she contribute them to charity? I can't wait to see if she is dedicated to her convictions, or if she is, as they say in Texas, "all hat, no cattle."
For the record: controllers are fairly compensated for the high stress, high tech, high-pressure work they perform. They are in a career that OPM has designated for special retirement provisions due to the fact that most employees would be unable to achieve a normal retirement due to the unique demands of the job. They give the very best years of their lives to their employers, and they give every ounce of themselves to the work they love and the people they serve. While you cannot put a price tag on safety, the salaries paid to air traffic controllers in this country rank as the best bargain since Manhattan Island was bought for a couple strings of colored beads.
Anonymous will respond to emails from you, but fears her peers. What I say to Anonymous is, "have no fear. Call me directly." My number is 202/628-5451 and if anonymous, or any of your readers, wish to discuss these matters further, I would be more than happy to oblige.
You see, I run an organization that is bedrocked on trust, honor and integrity. Facts, as our FAA Administrator would say, are stubborn things, and the facts are not with your Pulitzer pretender in any way, shape, form or fashion.
The staffing crisis is real. I am disappointed, that you found such anonymous rumor and hearsay to be newsworthy. You have not served the public well.
Best personal regards,
John S. Carr President NATCA
Dear AvWeb,
My name is John Carr. I am president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA,) and I represent slightly over 20,000 aviation safety related professionals at the FAA, Department of Defense and in the private sector. One of my largest bargaining units is the air traffic controller bargaining unit, numbering somewhere near 15,000 on any given day.
I am writing to address the issues raised in the anonymous letter you printed on September 9th from one "Jane Doe," allegedly an air traffic controller. Leaving aside for a moment the propriety of printing anonymous letters, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on and challenge virtually every assertion made by your ghost letter writer.
I must begin with a moment of clarity for your readers. NATCA advised you that we would be happy to grant interviews with you on any of the topics contained in the letter, but that we did not see the value in commenting on anonymous accusations about unidentified facilities. Therefore, your characterization that we emphatically declined to comment is unfortunately not accurate. That's a shame. We think your readers would have liked to know our positions on the issues raised. That's why I am writing today. The following are the facts.
First and foremost, every AvWeb reader should be shocked and, frankly, quite concerned about the remarks attributed to FAA spokesman Greg Martin. Incredibly enough, Martin believes an anonymous letter with no investigation, no corroboration, no evidence and no due process constitutes "troubling charges" that are "well known to the agency." If they are well known to the agency and the agency has done nothing about them, then agency officials responsible for such malfeasance should be removed from office immediately for dereliction of duty. Absent such affirmative action I will assume these anonymous and unsubstantiated charges are without merit or the agency is incompetent, inept and unable to manage their own affairs.
Second, Martin alleges CRU-X is controversial. What Martin does not report---probably because his superiors don't think he needs to know it---is that I have personally offered both Marion Blakey and Russ Chew the opportunity to turn CRU-X on immediately at every facility in the nation, without bargaining or union participation. The only caveat I have asked for in return is that it be done at every facility. Curiously enough, both Blakey and Chew have refused my more than generous offer. Why? Because CRU-X does not work. It does not work at large facilities, it does not work at medium sized facilities and it is only marginally efficient at small facilities. CRU-X is controversial because the agency tried to create a boutique computer program using lightweight software (Microsoft Access,) and their productivity product is crash-prone, buggy and unsuitable for nationwide implementation. The fact that the FAA still has the DOT Inspector General buffaloed concerning CRU-X ranks right up there with "Who Shot JR?" on the list of all-time good summer mysteries.
Now, to the text of your phantom pen pal's letter. She opens by claiming that no controller has been overworked at her last three facilities. Her remarks in this regard are telling from several perspectives. First, almost no controller refers to himself or herself as an "air traffic controller." We call ourselves just plain controllers, because we assume you know that there are no other kinds. Your author refers to controllers in the third person in much of her letter, which is also very telling. Controllers say "I," and "we." They rarely speak, Mr. T-like, in the third person when referring to themselves. For these reasons I doubt seriously that your letter writer is an active controller. Oh, she may have been one and might be in management or she could be one of those training failures she rails so mightily about, but I doubt that she's pushed much tin in her life.
Ms. Anonymous disagrees that staffing is too low. What Anonymous doesn't offer is any definitive proof concerning her claims. My organization is on record regarding the staffing issue, and as luck would have it we have no less an authority that the FAA Administrator, the GAO and the DOT IG as our proof points. Each of the three has testified regarding the looming staffing crisis. The fact that a single controller in a single facility disagrees isn't news. What is news is that we are already seeing staffing shortages occur. And what is also news is that when you increase staff to levels that the FAA actually requires, operational errors decline, or, simply put, safety increases.
Anonymous mentions time on position as if it is the Holy Grail of productivity measurements. Imagine my surprise in discovering that nothing could be further from the truth. Controllers do training, briefings, mandatory recurrency regimens and a whole host of other things that, while considered productive time, are not recorded as being "on position." Four hours on position plus two hours of non-position work is six hours a day. Allowing for two breaks and a lunch there isn't much time unaccounted for. I will also add that you probably don't want controllers staring at the ol' radar scope for more than about two hours on position without a break, a standard which the FAA agrees to, lest attentiveness wander and mental acuity fade (as all the research on the subject suggests it will.)
Stop the presses if you think using vacation time is newsworthy. Even the draconian FAA recognizes that employee vacation time is an earned right, not a privilege, and it is requested by the employee, approved by management, and used at the discretion of the controller. Anonymous makes it sound like a scandal. Sorry., . Using vacation time for a vacation is pretty much how things are done out here in the big world.
I am very grateful that your mystery scribe mentioned sick leave, because there is a misconception concerning sick leave that exists at the very highest levels of the agency. You see, controllers are drug tested, alcohol tested, vision tested, mentally tested, and are prohibited from working while taking a whole host of over the counter medications, including such medicine cabinet standards as NyQuil and Sudafed. This is appropriate, and as it should be.
I assure you that you do not want a controller working the noon balloon into Chicago O'Hare -- or anywhere else for that matter -- who's-reaction-time-is-slowed-by-the-effects-of-medication. To be blunt with you, working controllers longer, older and sicker is not only bad public policy but dangerous and unsafe. That moment of hesitation you sacrifice might be the difference between a safe operation and a thin pink mist at thirty thousand feet.
Anonymous did make one very salient and I believe correct point. The controllers union is staffed with very smart individuals. We take the safety of the flying public as our sacred trust, and we have an eighteen-year record of accomplishment in this regard. We have always been at the forefront of modernization, procedural innovation, technological introduction and productivity improvement. Our record of achievement can be abundantly documented in congressional testimony, memorandums of understanding, flexible work rules that allow for additional duties and contract after contract reached in good faith with our employer.
Anonymous allegations regarding drug use are troubling. I trust she has communicated them with the appropriate legal authorities for proper investigation and adjudication. The FAA has one of the lowest recorded drug use rates in the world, statistics readily available to anyone with the wherewithal to check. While Anonymous waxes philosophical about the protections offered these troubled individuals she ignores and even tramples on their rights to due process and rehabilitation. I can only hope she is in perfect mental and physical health for the duration of her career, lest someone suggest she, too be fired (although from the text of her letter the former is certainly in doubt.) Neither the FAA nor NATCA condones drug use, on or off duty. When it is discovered, by the very stringent protocols to which we are all subjected, the law takes over. It's pathetic and a little sad that such fair treatment escapes Anonymous' notice in her rush to judgment.
If controllers seem to Anonymous as arrogant, it's because controllers are taught to be right, 100% of the time, in 100% of the decisions that they make. Such training creates a certain foxhole mentality in towers and radar rooms, but it is no different in other high stress, high tech and high-pressure occupations, like police and firefighters. Is there a certain mental toughness required to perform the job? Absolutely. Is that something you want when you are hurtling through space in a Pringles tube full of jet fuel at five hundred miles an hour and someone else is making life and death decisions for you? I think so.
How controllers dress for work is immaterial to performance, but since she mentioned it I will cover it nonetheless. The dress code for controllers is negotiated between union and management. While I appreciate Anonymous' fashion sense she has no clue regarding what the employer thinks is appropriate work attire. Perhaps she could sit down with Greg Martin and hash that one out. While I doubt that a snappy Versace ensemble with matching broach and shoes will make one a better controller, I'm always willing to try new and innovative techniques.
Anonymouscloses by mentioning controller pay. I must assume from her tone and tenor she believes herself to be overpaid, and I anxiously await your research into what she does with these excess purloined wages. Does she do like Congressman DeFazio, and fund scholarships with her pay raises? Does she contribute them to charity? I can't wait to see if she is dedicated to her convictions, or if she is, as they say in Texas, "all hat, no cattle."
For the record: controllers are fairly compensated for the high stress, high tech, high-pressure work they perform. They are in a career that OPM has designated for special retirement provisions due to the fact that most employees would be unable to achieve a normal retirement due to the unique demands of the job. They give the very best years of their lives to their employers, and they give every ounce of themselves to the work they love and the people they serve. While you cannot put a price tag on safety, the salaries paid to air traffic controllers in this country rank as the best bargain since Manhattan Island was bought for a couple strings of colored beads.
Anonymous will respond to emails from you, but fears her peers. What I say to Anonymous is, "have no fear. Call me directly." My number is 202/628-5451 and if anonymous, or any of your readers, wish to discuss these matters further, I would be more than happy to oblige.
You see, I run an organization that is bedrocked on trust, honor and integrity. Facts, as our FAA Administrator would say, are stubborn things, and the facts are not with your Pulitzer pretender in any way, shape, form or fashion.
The staffing crisis is real. I am disappointed, that you found such anonymous rumor and hearsay to be newsworthy. You have not served the public well.
Best personal regards,
John S. Carr President NATCA
another related issue I've been aware of for many years, perhaps others out there as well, is that of union control of training in ywg center. the story goes, that the failure rate of controller candidates coming out of Cornwall trying to check out at ywg is something like 90%, and has been for many years. the reason being, that if everyone who should pass actually did, then there would be adequate staffing levels to negate the need for overtime. the overtime is what enables all controllers to make in excess of $100k/year.
as an aside, a controller from ywg center told me years ago that he thought that controllers should make as much money as a senior airline capt as they have the same responsibility. and how much did this controller pay for his training? and what are the chances that if something goes really wrong at work tonight that he's going to die?
as an aside, a controller from ywg center told me years ago that he thought that controllers should make as much money as a senior airline capt as they have the same responsibility. and how much did this controller pay for his training? and what are the chances that if something goes really wrong at work tonight that he's going to die?
stealing gas is illegal, Cory and Trevor
My apologies for the late response. I meant to respond earlier, but my kids were driving me crazy, and I couldn't think properly. Makes you kind of glad I go control airplanes everyday, doesn't it.
First of all, controllers in IFR units no longer require overtime to get over 100 grand. A few years qualified and you are there. Certain high density towers also can make this dough. I make no apologies for my salary, or for the salary of my fellow controllers. Like pilots, our skills are very specialized, and many lives are in our responsibility every day. Unlike pilots, however, there is a shortage of qualified controllers. Although this does not mean we demand a higher salary than pilots, it is the reverse for pilots. Too many pilots mean less demand and smaller wages.
I have been in IFR training, and came to within an inch of fully qualifing, but alas, it was no. YWG and YEG centers do have horrible check out rates, the worst in the country. I do not have any real solutions for this. Being there, I know that the majority of OJI's (on the job instructors) do their best to qualify trainees. Because of this horrible rate, Edmonton Enroute, Calgary Enroute and Calgary Terminal are understaffed, and continually run understaffed. This alone makes the training harder, as not only do you have to learn to do the job, but you have to learn to do it to the level that you can run the specialty understaffed. What a catch-22.
I sympathize with all the carriers flying out of YEG and YYC when we get those horrible 5 min between departure flows. It is out of my hands, all I can do is what my managment tells me to do. My only advise would be to cancel IFR and fly VFR if your company regs let you, but to aleve the pressure on the system might give management the idea that there is not a problem.
Privatization has helped out alot, believe it or not. Not in the labor and human relations side (long contract negotiations, massive support layoffs, etc), but on the technical side. We now have RADAR in Yellowknife, and other locations in the north to help serve intercontenental overflights, as well as smaller airports. We have more automated control towers, with better radio and computer systems. These would have come under Transport Canada, but at a much slower rate. This has helped certain specialties, but alas not central and southern Alberta.
Does the Union contribute to the CT'ing of trainees just to ensure their members get lots of OT? Hell NO!! if anything, union dues are based on Salary only, so the union wants more members to do the job. There are far too many controllers with over 30 years in that do not want to work overtime. Their mortgages are paid off, kids out of school, expenses low, they would rather go golfing then come into work. (unfortunatly they do tend to get more medical reasons to not come into work, thereby increasing O/T). The main reason that trainees are CT'd is that they can not do the job. We do not want to put unqualified people in position just so that the seats can be filled, we know that your lives are on the line, and we do not want to jeopardize that.
My rant has been kind of all over the place, so if you want any clarifiying, or more info, just respond and I'll gladly do so, but it maynot be very expeditious in coming.
Rob Benusic, CYEG (formerly CYXD) Tower
Also, in any Fact Finding Board, the union helps represent their members, and we do not want to do that often.
First of all, controllers in IFR units no longer require overtime to get over 100 grand. A few years qualified and you are there. Certain high density towers also can make this dough. I make no apologies for my salary, or for the salary of my fellow controllers. Like pilots, our skills are very specialized, and many lives are in our responsibility every day. Unlike pilots, however, there is a shortage of qualified controllers. Although this does not mean we demand a higher salary than pilots, it is the reverse for pilots. Too many pilots mean less demand and smaller wages.
I have been in IFR training, and came to within an inch of fully qualifing, but alas, it was no. YWG and YEG centers do have horrible check out rates, the worst in the country. I do not have any real solutions for this. Being there, I know that the majority of OJI's (on the job instructors) do their best to qualify trainees. Because of this horrible rate, Edmonton Enroute, Calgary Enroute and Calgary Terminal are understaffed, and continually run understaffed. This alone makes the training harder, as not only do you have to learn to do the job, but you have to learn to do it to the level that you can run the specialty understaffed. What a catch-22.
I sympathize with all the carriers flying out of YEG and YYC when we get those horrible 5 min between departure flows. It is out of my hands, all I can do is what my managment tells me to do. My only advise would be to cancel IFR and fly VFR if your company regs let you, but to aleve the pressure on the system might give management the idea that there is not a problem.
Privatization has helped out alot, believe it or not. Not in the labor and human relations side (long contract negotiations, massive support layoffs, etc), but on the technical side. We now have RADAR in Yellowknife, and other locations in the north to help serve intercontenental overflights, as well as smaller airports. We have more automated control towers, with better radio and computer systems. These would have come under Transport Canada, but at a much slower rate. This has helped certain specialties, but alas not central and southern Alberta.
Does the Union contribute to the CT'ing of trainees just to ensure their members get lots of OT? Hell NO!! if anything, union dues are based on Salary only, so the union wants more members to do the job. There are far too many controllers with over 30 years in that do not want to work overtime. Their mortgages are paid off, kids out of school, expenses low, they would rather go golfing then come into work. (unfortunatly they do tend to get more medical reasons to not come into work, thereby increasing O/T). The main reason that trainees are CT'd is that they can not do the job. We do not want to put unqualified people in position just so that the seats can be filled, we know that your lives are on the line, and we do not want to jeopardize that.
My rant has been kind of all over the place, so if you want any clarifiying, or more info, just respond and I'll gladly do so, but it maynot be very expeditious in coming.
Rob Benusic, CYEG (formerly CYXD) Tower
Also, in any Fact Finding Board, the union helps represent their members, and we do not want to do that often.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Wow.
We are getting a serious discussion here that actually is adult and to the point.
Rob, good on you for using your name, it adds to the credibility of your post.
. E.
We are getting a serious discussion here that actually is adult and to the point.
Rob, good on you for using your name, it adds to the credibility of your post.
. E.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
