- Messages
- 3,263
Last edited:
3rd Quarter 2017
- Thread starter MJ
- Start date
SugarFoot1
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 475
Has anyone seen or heard about the email that said 7s and below need to be 100% staffed before they are eligible to release instead of the cat 2 as in the mou?
corn4ahead
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 699
I think you might be misinterpreting an email.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
Yeah that's not even remotely true
SugarFoot1
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 475
I have never seen the email just what our FACREP said yesterday when I brought up the fact that we are almost cat 2
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
To put it kindly, your Facrep either has no idea what he's talking about or he's trying to ERR out and is intentionally lying to all of you in hopes you'll delay putting in ERRs
SpaceTraffic
Member
- Messages
- 45
I think the staff to 100% means that they are keeping the pipeline filled so that 7 and below...now 9 and below are always going to be at 100% projected based on the facility training cycle.
SugarFoot1
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 475
I just read the memo put out by NATCA. Clears it up a good bit about being able to release. I think our NATCA rep interpreted it incorrectly thinking we had to get to 100%. We are projected to get to 97% at my fac but we are currently at 18/24 AOB. Hopefully two people can check out before the ppt is run though
rugbydog11
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 639
well someone got "humbled" again yesterday... I doubt derby and horse sales are going to help the cause. also, we lose someone late May/early June, so we probably need 3 certs. There is talk of renegotiating how many cpc's we actually need, and that 24 is a bit too high.
SugarFoot1
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 475
Well I was off so it wasn't me so I assume I kno who it was.....21 is the number I was told would be negotiated. Hopefully that is negotiated prior to the next PPT being run for your sake. Maybe I can buy you a bunch of green beer and talk you into pulling your paperwork
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
They originally negotiated it. For us it was an old FacRep and old ATM, both were on the way out and didn't consult anyone. We've tried to get ours changed since without any luck. Both parties (NATCA and your ATM) need to agree, write a statement as to why it should change then send it up the chain of command responsible for the NCEPT. I've yet to hear of a 'success' story but these were the instructions given to us when we tried.
Dontbotherme
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 899
Facilities are never going to be at 100% until the agency starts using actual certification rates of individual facilities (NCEPT uses 61.8% for all large TRACONs even though our success rate here is 42.7% on transfers/new hires since 2010) and actually make their hiring goals for more than one year.
breakaway2000
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,693
Exactly. This has been one of my biggest pet peeves since this thing started. Goes both ways too, large facilities with deflated check out rates are going to be overstaffed while facilities like yours who need more will be perennially understaffed. It's not difficult for facilities to report their own training success rate, I have no idea why they don't...
I think they tried to use facility-specific CPC rates on the second or third (?) NCEPT and if I remember correctly, it drastically messed with the formulas/numbers and I think the info was extremely limited/out of date.
I think the issue the NCEPT will run into (if they haven't already) is using facility-specific success rate in the "typical" training time for a type of facility. We've all seen/heard the 3-5 year checkout at a lower level facility which doesn't fit with the timeframe the FAA has set for each type of facility.
They could start collecting the success rate/CPC timeframe but it would obviously take a few years to get accurate data. Hopefully the FAA has already started...but who knows.
I think the issue the NCEPT will run into (if they haven't already) is using facility-specific success rate in the "typical" training time for a type of facility. We've all seen/heard the 3-5 year checkout at a lower level facility which doesn't fit with the timeframe the FAA has set for each type of facility.
They could start collecting the success rate/CPC timeframe but it would obviously take a few years to get accurate data. Hopefully the FAA has already started...but who knows.
It would take 0 years. They have the data. They've chosen an average of like type facilities from 09-12 for the current number. Use a more recent sample. Or just expand the sample from 09-15? You could use an average for like type if the individual sample size is too small I guess. But expanding it to a 6 year window would help that part. Regardless, the current number is inaccurate which is a problem but the bigger problem for the panel is foundational in that the number is actually willfully inaccurate. Further undermining faith in the process.
Andrew
Member
- Messages
- 130
The new facility Placement tool is out, looks like facilities that are eligible as of now have a 0 in column Y instead a negative number like I thought we would see. My facility shows 1 in column Y so I think if we get 1 person before june we should be able to release one.
- Messages
- 253
- Facility
- ZTL Atlanta Center
With the Placement tool updated is it safe to assume the Facility Priority and Vacancy list will be updated soon as well. The last update was March 2nd so hopefully it will come out next week as that would be a month. Am curious to see what tops the lists as I find the excel spreadsheet difficult to comprehend (especially after JFC landed top spot last time).
SugarFoot1
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 475
Glad to see they finally improved something!!
