4th quarter 2017

  • Thread starter Thread starter MJ
  • Start date Start date
The list makes no sense how did lax jump to 20 pus gains when Natca just stated they did not select everyone in the panel due to training backlog ?!? I did not have a err to lax just wondering how they came to that conclusion and now they need 25 when I think the last one stated they needed 11
You can view the conversation a few pages back. All facilities updated to their actual training success rate from 2010-2014 starting this panel. LAX's training success rate dropped to 42%. With each trainee counting as ~4/10ths of a person, they "need" more trainee's to hit the national average.
 
The list makes no sense how did lax jump to 20 pus gains when Natca just stated they did not select everyone in the panel due to training backlog ?!? I did not have a err to lax just wondering how they came to that conclusion and now they need 25 when I think the last one stated they needed 11
Where did they say that?
 
Where did they say that?
An explanation was sent out following the last NCEPT. In it, they mentioned the NCEPT team did not select all of the available candidates for LAX, MIA, I90, and ORD because, in their eyes, it would have overwhelmed the training department at those facilities.
 
Where did they say that?
Here is a look into what took place this past week from Andrew LeBovidge, NATCA NCEPT representative:
A quick synopsis of yesterday’s NCEPT panel.

As stated previously, approximately 90 employee packages were erroneously left of the managerial ranking lists when those lists were initially released. All were added for consideration and lists were revised to incorporate the additional names. As the panel progressed, we asked the Agency to identify those employees who fell into this category, to see how they were ranked by each facility. 5 facilities (D10. SCT, NCT, LGA, ZMA) did not rank the missing personnel - which proved to be a moot point, as the individuals either were selected at a higher priority facility, or the losing facilities could no longer release personnel when these 5 were due to make selections. Other facilities, with the exception of DTW, seemed to have incorporate the additions into the list with due consideration. DTW seemed to place all at the bottom of the list - which again proved to be a moot point.

151 selections were made, including 16 in the second round to place at the FPL-9 and below up to 100% projected. The second round included placements at SEA, SRQ, HOU, ANC, PDX, CLE, DVT, SAT, ADS, PVD, GRB, BOI.

At 4 facilities (LAX, I90, MIA, and ORD) the decision was made not to place every available candidate, as those facilities had high percentages of trainees and to add more could stress their training programs. These facilities did receive remaining candidates from the top of their ranking lists.

Mutual swaps - 8 swaps were considered, and 2 were approved. 5 were denied because one or both of the facilities involved were “red”, and the last one was no longer valid since once of the employees had been selected during the NCEPT round. Additionally, we resolved the concern with “cutoff dates” for mutual swap submission. After much debate with the Agency, which wanted to have submission deadlines, it was determined that any swap that was in the hands of the ESTs when they headed to the panel would be considered. Effectively, that’s the Monday or Tuesday before the panel convenes.

We are working to increase the frequency of the panels. The next two meetings are set - Sept 7 and December 14. We will try to schedule the first panel of 2018 in February, and then go from there. No particular group associated with the NCEPT expressed grave concerns about the frequency, so I think we’ll be able to add additional sessions without too much difficulty.
 
An explanation was sent out following the last NCEPT. In it, they mentioned the NCEPT team did not select all of the available candidates for LAX, MIA, I90, and ORD because, in their eyes, it would have overwhelmed the training department at those facilities.
A quick synopses of how to completely fail in workforce management:
  1. Make new process which negatively impacts everything
  2. Declare process transparent and objective
  3. Apply new rules randomly and without disclosure
  4. When process fails create new subjective rules
  5. Repeat as needed
 
At 4 facilities (LAX, I90, MIA, and ORD) the decision was made not to place every available candidate, as those facilities had high percentages of trainees and to add more could stress their training programs. These facilities did receive remaining candidates from the top of their ranking lists.

Was this in a weekly update or something? BTW complete horseshit at I90 at least.
 
Lets say, hypothetically, there are 300 eligible controllers to transfer and all 300 put in for N90. They just take 20 or so and call it a wrap even though they apparently need all 300? I get its impossible to train that many people, but dont put the numbers out if you arent going to fill them. I still stand my idea that this shouldnt be done quarterly, each facility should pull a eligible list when they need some new trainees and this is more evidence to support.
 
Maybe some one else can shed light on this but I'm hearing other facilities are in need of bodies and soon there maybe a few other facilities that if you volunteer for, you will be released regardless of your current facility cat status. I.e. If you are not a cat 2 facility you can transfer to said facility still similar to Chicago and NY tracon.
 
Maybe some one else can shed light on this but I'm hearing other facilities are in need of bodies and soon there maybe a few other facilities that if you volunteer for, you will be released regardless of your current facility cat status. I.e. If you are not a cat 2 facility you can transfer to said facility still similar to Chicago and NY tracon.
There's been no discussion of this by the NCEPT team. I'm guessing you heard this from a random guy at work? The only facility that has a bonafide claim is A80 and as @Robertb can attest they have continually been denied their request for a bid. The only MPP bid other then C90/N90 was Guam and the only reason that was an MPP bid was to properly list all of the additional benefits. Even with the MPP bid for Guam, they still required you to be Cat 1 or Cat 2 to apply.
 
A quick synopses of how to completely fail in workforce management:
  1. Make new process which negatively impacts everything
  2. Declare process transparent and objective
  3. Apply new rules randomly and without disclosure
  4. When process fails create new subjective rules
  5. Repeat as needed
I like this excerpt from NATCAs website

"After many years of advocacy by NATCA, the FAA has finally put in place a less bureaucratic and more expeditious transfer policy for current FAA controllers that encourages experienced controllers at lower level facilities to voluntarily move up (at their own expense) to busier, more complex facilities. While this does not fix the staffing concerns, it does allow experienced controllers to move to busier facilities where they are more likely to certify than an Academy graduate. Subsequently, it allows the FAA to place Academy graduates in the less complex and busy facilities where they are more likely to certify. Previously, Academy graduates were placed in busy towers and radar facilities upon graduation with dismal success rates"

MEMBER LOGIN
 
just curious.. so does that mean that the 11 that got picked up at i90 on this last bid wont all go? or that there were more but they just denied them.
 
Last edited:
yea i saw that but i also see that they are still below the national average so you'd think they would still take people.
 
Back
Top Bottom