All of this is in writingThere’s NCEPT for ya. We’ve both seen contradicting info...
All of this is in writingThere’s NCEPT for ya. We’ve both seen contradicting info...
Because I think a lot of people don't understand NCEPT. Just because your facility can release two and multiple people have paperwork in doesn't actually guarantee two people will be selected.Your ATM and Facrep have 0 control over outbound selections. Cat2 is at or before 12 months after selection. If you’re selected your ATM can hold you for 12 months at most. Any deviations from the MOU have to be approved by VP of ATS.
The 30% cpc to trainee ratio was an inbound restriction so it could cause a facility to have less selections but is irrelevant to release eligibility.
If the PPT displays 2 losses than you can lose 2.
Even NCEPT doesn’t understand NCEPT.Because I think a lot of people don't understand NCEPT. Just because your facility can release two and multiple people have paperwork in doesn't actually guarantee two people will be selected.
This is untrue. You need AOB above 85% and projected above 85%. Most facilities are projected above 85% especially if you receive new hire placements in any way. AOB (requires certs) is what is keeping most controllers from being release eligible.
Won’t the projected numbers start training as the average certifications are updated?A common thing I hear is that trainees need to certify for a release to be had, which is not the case. There can be planned outbounds, and trainees on the books, with no certifications and a facility can release based off of gaining enough inbounds while the outbound CAT2 is still at the facility. COVID EA as example, if they continue NCEPT, trainees don't even have to set foot inside a facility for them to count towards the projected AOB.
Move78 has a better understanding but I believe the projected numbers are based on the success rate and a facility's average time to certify, in consideration of inbounds/trainees expected to certify.Won’t the projected numbers start training as the average certifications are updated?
The manager has to put those trainees in staffing workbook within that projected period for them to count. Trainees don’t have certify you are correct, but at a center an AG will never count within the projected period day one, they have to get a few certs first. Figure out what the projected period is and you’ll have a better indication of how your number is calculated, low level tower only probably a year.A common thing I hear is that trainees need to certify for a release to be had, which is not the case. There can be planned outbounds, and trainees on the books, with no certifications and a facility can release based off of gaining enough inbounds while the outbound CAT2 is still at the facility. COVID EA as example, if they continue NCEPT, trainees don't even have to set foot inside a facility for them to count towards the projected AOB.
Is the projected period not the average training time?The manager has to put those trainees in staffing workbook within that projected period for them to count. Trainees don’t have certify you are correct, but at a center an AG will never count within the projected period day one, they have to get a few certs first. Figure out what the projected period is and you’ll have a better indication of how your number is calculated, low level tower only probably a year.
No. Its a year because that is the longest release possible under ncept. Managers or districts have to enter projected certification date in staffing workbook for all trainees, if it falls outside of the year those trainees do not count toward th3 projected number. I have heard rumors some facilities operate outside of that but no prof and just rumors.Is the projected period not the average training time?
This is the general questions thread in the NCEPT forum. Questions are supposed to be about NCEPT.Had a question about CPDLC. Posted it under General Questions. Some guy deleted it, said it was off subject. hmmm
My point is a trainee needing to certify for a release to be had is usually the case. Years ago when the projected half of the release requirement was natl avg (~90-92%) then both AOB and projected were often a factor. With the projected bar lowered to 85%, and the general inflated projecteds in the data, most facilities are either 85 AOB or they’re red.A common thing I hear is that trainees need to certify for a release to be had, which is not the case. There can be planned outbounds, and trainees on the books, with no certifications and a facility can release based off of gaining enough inbounds while the outbound CAT2 is still at the facility. COVID EA as example, if they continue NCEPT, trainees don't even have to set foot inside a facility for them to count towards the projected AOB.
All of this is untrue. All trainees/inbounds count towards projected on day 1The manager has to put those trainees in staffing workbook within that projected period for them to count. Trainees don’t have certify you are correct, but at a center an AG will never count within the projected period day one, they have to get a few certs first. Figure out what the projected period is and you’ll have a better indication of how your number is calculated, low level tower only probably a year.
Yes they have estimated cert dates manually entered into SWB. Those dates are not a part of the projected formula.No. Its a year because that is the longest release possible under ncept. Managers or districts have to enter projected certification date in staffing workbook for all trainees, if it falls outside of the year those trainees do not count toward th3 projected number. I have heard rumors some facilities operate outside of that but no prof and just rumors.
So a center or an up/down AG trainee with a projected certification date entered in staffing workbook for 2 years from their first day at the facility, counts toward projected staffing within the same period as a level 5-6-7 tower only? If that’s what you know for a fact at a facility with long training times then the projected calculation is different there than facilities with shorter training times, which I have been told is only a year due to the fact that the longest release date is a year.My point is a trainee needing to certify for a release to be had is usually the case. Years ago when the projected half of the release requirement was natl avg (~90-92%) then both AOB and projected were often a factor. With the projected bar lowered to 85%, and the general inflated projecteds in the data, most facilities are either 85 AOB or they’re red.
There are many columns included in the projected formula. All the green columns positively effect projected and the red columns negatively effect it. But projected has been largely irrelevant for release for quite some time.
All of this is untrue. All trainees/inbounds count towards projected on day 1
Yes they have estimated cert dates manually entered into SWB. Those dates are not a part of the projected formula.
You were told wrong. It’s training time in years. You can plug in the data yourself on an editable pptSo a center or an up/down AG trainee with a projected certification date entered in staffing workbook for 2 years from their first day at the facility, counts toward projected staffing within the same period as a level 5-6-7 tower only? If that’s what you know for a fact at a facility with long training times then the projected calculation is different there than facilities with shorter training times, which I have been told is only a year due to the fact that the longest release date is a year.
I was told by a union and management representative that it was when I asked how long is the period? Not just at my facility?You were told wrong. It’s training time in years. You can plug in the data yourself on an editable ppt
The PPT is the foundation for staffing projections and movement but not the other way around.I was told by a union and management representative that it was when I asked how long is the period? Not just at my facility?
So what the hell.
Also maybe it should only be a year because then some facilities wouldn’t be able to release and give some others a chance. It would facilitate more appropriate movement and academy placement.
How is an outbound of 12 months counted in the projection when you are saying the projection collumn is less time than that?The PPT is the foundation for staffing projections and movement but not the other way around.
The only scenario where release categories could technically effect the projected column incorrectly (in theory, because let’s be honest a lot of this process is incorrect) is if a facility has a cat2 release of 12 months and their training time in years is less than that. In that case they’re registering an outbound that won’t actually be outbound within the data’s timeframe.
If your training time in years is 2 years then your 12 month outbound is still outbound within the data’s timeframe.
I didn’t explain it very well. The projection column is projected over the time frame of training time in years. So if your training time is 2 years then an outbound in 12 months is an outbound within those 2 years.How is an outbound of 12 months counted in the projection when you are saying the projection collumn is less time than that?
I understand that and makes total sense and that’s obviously what it should be. You did give a scenario above that an outbound at 12 months would be counted when the average training time is less and they are still counted....that can’t possibly be the case.I didn’t explain it very well. The projection column is projected over the time frame of training time in years. So if your training time is 2 years then an outbound in 12 months is an outbound within those 2 years.
Ah I see what you mean. So I guess the correct way to phrase it is the projected column doesn’t technically have a timetable within the formula because it’s just a formula using the specific inbound(green) outbound(red) columns. It’s just “meant” to reflect training time in years because there’s a training time in years based column within it. The retirements and other losses (red) uses training time in years however that formula is not visible and is calculated by the finance department.I understand that and makes total sense and that’s obviously what it should be. You did give a scenario above that an outbound at 12 months would be counted when the average training time is less and they are still counted....that can’t possibly be the case.