DADDYSbabyBIRD
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 145
Do you DD your wife's dates with other people? Sounds like it.
2023 FAA Reauthorization - consolidating low-level TRACONs
- Thread starter Termine
- Start date
AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 568
15.7 hours per week 😳
AZO has something like 16 plus sectors and they get 2 primary airports. Those complexity multipliers helped make them an 8 from a 7 but even then, the workforce was promised the combined facility would easily be a 9, that’s what got people to move. Another fail. Now they don’t get academy grads bc they are an 8
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 662
They were never actually told they would be a 9 by anyone who was “in the know.”
That was an assumption based on rough estimates that were ran. The ATM at the time thought it was a foregone conclusion that it was going to be a 9 and that’s possibly where people were “told” it was going to be a 9.
Even Zilonis, who was the RVP at the time during initial meetings, didn’t commit to any level upgrade other than it would initially go to a 7 since GRR was already a 7. They couldn’t do anything else until there was real TCI data.
CaptainObvious
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,133
Scrap TCI, remove levels. If the move by the FAA is to consolidate radars we need to preserve what is left and make the new facilities worthwhile. The majority of terminal would be level 4-5 towers, consolidated tracons, and busier hub facilities. I think three levels would be more appropriate. Move all the leftover 4-5 facilities into the 7 band. Consolidated facilities to 10. All the existing 9-12 should be 11 or 12. Then the busy hard to staff facilities (N90, C90, A80, whatever facilities need to negotiated) can be on their separate pay scale. Can’t staff N90? Negotiate pay that will.
Which is still crazy that a 6 (AZO) can absorb a 7(GRR), another 6(LAN) and three fives (MKG,MBS,FNT) and those 6 facilities combined only get to an 8.
boots
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,054
I don’t think you realize how dead a 5 up/down is
I’m aware. The 5s all went to 4s after they lost the radar. Having a radar makes you a 5, you can’t be lower than a 5 with your own radar approach control. Still, 6 facilities put together only make an 8. I feel like you should be get more, when you are adding places up.
Soul_Controller
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 309
That's the problem. They don't actually add up unless the airspaces are joined. If it's just a bunch of separate airspaces then you just get a lot of "either/or." I AZOs case, it's GRR's 7 plus the random ass complexity modifiers.
They are all joined up now, 1 contiguous airspace. AZO is all of Michigan except D21 and way up north in MI which is ZMP.
TCI and pay are broken. Add up total compensation (pay, pension, healthcare, ect….) of all the former up/downs in Michigan. Now look and how many fewer CPC’s are needed and work that airspace on a daily basis. Lower training time, less facility maintenance. We are more efficient and pay should reflect that.
Busier than a center low sector? That’s not o diss on the center controllers either. We’re on the same team.
Acquired Taste
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 961
The dumb thing about 804 is that even though they could be much more efficient, they are not. When they decide to consolidate a place, let's say GRR, they will decide how many CPCs are needed to go along with the radar. For example, maybe they decide that number is 10. Then they literally just remove 10 from the GRR target and add 10 to the AZO target and call it a day.
Even though some a lot of these consolidations could be more efficient and combine sectors up requiring less people, natca won't allow the agency to eliminate jobs. Therefore, I'm sure AZO is probably pretty chill and it feels fat staffed even though they are only staffed at 77%.
I mean, this is exactly the reason they do 804s: to save the agency money. Increasing pay at the end of it would go against that goal and would probably tip the balance against the 804 being worth it in the first place.
Is there a process where facilities sign off on the 804?
pedaNTIc
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 169
And the ironic thing is, what saved the FAA’s ass with the Chicago Center sabotage that actually happened? Having all those Midwest up/downs with an extra ‘just in case’ scope/positions, so ZAU could disperse CPCs to resume their services as best they could while repairs were conducted.
And what does the Agency do afterwards? Keep up the robust redundancy that was of great help? Naw, continue with the 804s, in that region particularly.
Those in the know or who were there, please lmk if I got anything wrong.
Definitely correct on this one.
No, but congress has to sign off on it. This is why the n90 thing is messed up. Faa wants to consolidate and realign airspace from n90 to phl. At face value this should be subject to the 804 process. The FAAs internal opinion is “nuh-uh” and natca said “well, if the FAA says it doesn’t fall under 804 it must be correct, why would they lie about that?”
Congress finds out and is like wtf do you think you’re doing!? And now it’s on pause.
What are the odds of that happening again though?
Last edited:
