Maintainvfr
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 528
I don't really think that guys post should have been removed. He didn't attack the OP, he just had a negative tone.
April (Q2) 2019
- Thread starter MJ
- Start date
- Messages
- 996
This thread is designated for the upcoming NCEPT panel. Let’s keep the discussion on topic.
- Messages
- 3,446
Someone correct me if I am wrong but I think a part of what determines priority is how hard a place is to staff so this could mean not everyone is climbing all over each other to get there. Could be good for you lol
- Messages
- 491
- Facility
- Command Center
Nice SN, I should change mine to "thankgodigotouttaaspen"
They still have the board with pictures of everyone's first day?
Yep they are all still there.
There is some type of hard to staff value that is present in the decision lense criteria formula but it doesn't appear to be hugely weighted. There are plenty of highly sought after, competitive facilities at the top of the priority list. And it appears to be the case that towers are still out prioritizing Tracon and Centers generally.
Well I think n90 ZNY and c90 are exceptions if you're trying to identify trends among regular facilities. I don't believe we're capable of seeing exactly what data determines that hard to staff value either.
My point to the OP really was if a facility is top twenty and that's the only data point you're looking at then you really can't determine if it's hard to staff in any way.
For example: all 3 large Denver facilities are almost always top 20 and are clearly not hard to staff.
Current examples: BOS DFW DEN DCA ATL CLT IAH all high all clearly not hard to staff if you're judging hard to staff by total ERR applicants.
Maybe DTW is hard to staff. If I had to guess I'd say I doubt it. But being 2 on the list could also be attributed to other factors like a low CPC to trainee ratio.
Also I'm assuming the OP is judging hard to staff by volume of ERR applicants because he's concerned about how competitive the list will be. DTW essentially picks first with 4 picks on the most recent priority so you'd have to be top 4 to get it.
The hard to staff equation is (Pot*ERRreq)/Gap
Pot is the potential for hard to staff which is essential any tracon or tower great or equal to a level 8 which gives it a 1 point. Centers dont rate.
ERRreq is the number of actual ERRs into a place, this is the only none ready information. Though I do assume the controller underground could find it.
Gap is the gap to the target number plus the non developmental losses.
It's on a sliding scale which determines a facilities priority, for HTS it makes up 34% of that value.
It's all in the NCEPT SOP.
Pot is the potential for hard to staff which is essential any tracon or tower great or equal to a level 8 which gives it a 1 point. Centers dont rate.
ERRreq is the number of actual ERRs into a place, this is the only none ready information. Though I do assume the controller underground could find it.
Gap is the gap to the target number plus the non developmental losses.
It's on a sliding scale which determines a facilities priority, for HTS it makes up 34% of that value.
It's all in the NCEPT SOP.
do you think ERRreq is total ERR submissions or valid ERR submissions?
Side note: Seems like basing potential for hard to staff specifically on terminal facility level isn't a great measure.
Additional side note: Seems like grouping different terminal types together for HTS pot is also a bad measure because you only need to get to 30 for a high tower instead of 100-200 at some tracons.
Last edited:
What would make a submission valid versus invalid?
I can understand the 8 and above, as 7 and below are meant for academy entries and the entire thing is meant for upward movement. Whereas it's not just terminal level, the amount of people with packages into it are a multiplier which reduce the ratio versus the gap to target when there are more packages in.
The level is the least number really, the packages submitted are the important value which determines the most. Hence hard to staff.
I can understand the 8 and above, as 7 and below are meant for academy entries and the entire thing is meant for upward movement. Whereas it's not just terminal level, the amount of people with packages into it are a multiplier which reduce the ratio versus the gap to target when there are more packages in.
The level is the least number really, the packages submitted are the important value which determines the most. Hence hard to staff.
The phraseology they use in the panel minutes is "valid" and I believe it encompasses ERRs that are in the queue for consideration. Meaning it's the number of ERRs that are from controllers eligible for release.
So if facility X has 30 total ERR submissions they only see whatever number of those are from controllers eligible for release so the list they're ranking is something likely less than 30. The number of ERRs in the queue for consideration that panel, I would think, would give a measurable idea as to how much interest in facility X is actually currently applicable. Whereas the total number would certainly give a better idea as to how much actual interest there is in facility X. I don't know which number they would use for the ERRreq part of the formula.
Also the way I read your post was that you essentially had to be a greater than 7 terminal facility to be eligible to generate any "pot" value at all. Is my interpretation wrong?
The wording in the SOP is "current ERR requests" so I'm assuming it's all requests into a facility. Also the wording for the "pot/potential" value states "usually TRACONs or big towers"
So essentially if it's a level 7 or below facility for "pot" it automatically generates a 0 which essentially zeroes out the rest of the equation.
So essentially if it's a level 7 or below facility for "pot" it automatically generates a 0 which essentially zeroes out the rest of the equation.
- Messages
- 996
Where is it written when the next panel will be held? No luck finding it on KSN.
- Messages
- 996
No; I’m referencing the (I guess) 3rd Quarter panel.
Phillyman2633
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 1,097
Anyone know if the NCEPT data on the KSN site is the most up-to-date source for the info, and if the March version posted today is the official status that the panel will be using for their selections?
Elaboration: the current NCEPT info on the KSN site as posted today with the "March" header shows [muh facility] as Cat 2, but on the members' side of the natca.org, the NCEPT Excel spreadsheet lists [muh facility] as Cat None.
Anyone know?
Elaboration: the current NCEPT info on the KSN site as posted today with the "March" header shows [muh facility] as Cat 2, but on the members' side of the natca.org, the NCEPT Excel spreadsheet lists [muh facility] as Cat None.
Anyone know?
That's the general post, the posting NCEPT will be using is generated 2 weeks prior to the panel convening which I think they stated for Q2 it should be the 27th I think. But it should be the most up to date, they'll be using information from the same posting, then running it through the decision factors for the priority and vacancy list. NATCA is slow to up date, KSN2 is the better source.
