Robert_Boucher
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 851
Well ain't that some sh!t.
April (Q2) 2019
- Thread starter MJ
- Start date
I’m not sure about that. The methods of staffing a facility (NCEPT, new hire onboarding, NEST, etc) run independent of each other, and are based on locked-in PPT numbers for that given time period. That’s why VGT got enough people to be 140% staffed last year, as they were at ~70% staffing and thus each method of facility staffing treated them as a priority. Since they don’t communicate with each other, each method staffed them to 100% independently, which is why they ended up so much over 100% in the end.
Truth be told, if what you say IS true, it would be a better explanation than “we don’t want to staff a facility over an arbitrary, non-transparent number because of a training backlog.” We should see those hardships reflected on the next PPT if that’s indeed what happened, but then the question arises as to why they’re not using locked-in “possible gains” numbers on the NCEPT Priority list, nor locked-in PPT numbers.
I get tired of quoting myself sometimes, anyway like it's been said multiple times there is more than one process which can effect NCEPT. Between NEST, previous experience new hires, etc etc and eveveeveven some shady situations can alter how the NCEPT works.
Don't make the mistake that the FAA prioritizes NCEPT over any other employee movement. Ours is a requested when we do ERR, spots can easily be filled by any sort of movement.
Just because you have releases doesnt mean you're going anywhere. Even if the facility hasthe numbers for it, doesn't mean there isnt background movement.
- Messages
- 1
- Facility
- P50 Phoenix Tracon
Looks like I'm going to SCT
There should be documentation describing the fact that the NEST, PrevExp, and hardships all effect the staffing of facilities in a consistent manner?
When what you describe runs against the NCEPT SOP, yes. You’re saying the concept of “possible gains” on the facility priority list, having a PPT locked in to certain staffing numbers for a panel, etc, is all subject to behind-the-scenes changes that affect movement contradictory to what’s published on KSN and in the NCEPT SOP. That’s a bold claim.
AlibasterJohnson
Member
- Messages
- 4
I think this just hammers home the fact that no one really has any clue how this process is suppose to work and that your request to go somewhere is a lottery pick. I dont get why it's that way but it is what it is. I think that it should just be a usajobs posting or something when facilities are picking up and then you apply like it's a new job request. Then at least you can know what a certain facility is looking for (i.e. type of certifications, number of years of CPC experience, etc.) At least then it's a little less clandestine operation that what the NCEPT process seems to be.
Congrats Richard Mulliner, and everyone who did get selected.
The NCEPT process is not perfect, no one here is saying it is. there is an issue in the previous system for ERRs and this was the solution they came up with. You will never be able to make everyone happy. For those that are stuck, I'm sorry, you do what you need to do to get out. apply high on the priority list and pray for NCEPT luck. Touring/contacting the destination facilities goes a long way to helping your chances.
There can be staffing corrections after the staffing worksheets is published official. People will see it and say "that is not right" and often fixes are made that are not published. They are however accounted for in the NCEPT selection. MLU is not the only facility that had 0 to release and let 1 go.
I think what they are asking for is to add ALL selections to a unified list. hardships, previous experience, etc... all included so that they can be better held accountable if there is a mistake. I believe we are asking for transparency not to punish anyone's mistake or oversight, but to correct it if quickly if it is found to be true. Having that documentation will go a long way in researching the facts. There are a lot of wheels turning in a complex system.
The NCEPT process is not perfect, no one here is saying it is. there is an issue in the previous system for ERRs and this was the solution they came up with. You will never be able to make everyone happy. For those that are stuck, I'm sorry, you do what you need to do to get out. apply high on the priority list and pray for NCEPT luck. Touring/contacting the destination facilities goes a long way to helping your chances.
There can be staffing corrections after the staffing worksheets is published official. People will see it and say "that is not right" and often fixes are made that are not published. They are however accounted for in the NCEPT selection. MLU is not the only facility that had 0 to release and let 1 go.
I think what they are asking for is to add ALL selections to a unified list. hardships, previous experience, etc... all included so that they can be better held accountable if there is a mistake. I believe we are asking for transparency not to punish anyone's mistake or oversight, but to correct it if quickly if it is found to be true. Having that documentation will go a long way in researching the facts. There are a lot of wheels turning in a complex system.
Electricfence
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 373
It’s not all done at the same time. Yes the facility can pick up 5, however the hardships are independently decided because they can allow 5 arrivals. It just so happens 2 people put in hardships for the facility. The ncept panel knows about them. The ppt is not just for ncept, it’s to account for as close to real time staffing as possible so everyone can be on the same page.
The PPT is locked in monthly, that's what each tab is on the spreadsheet. The locking in of staffing levels on the PPT serves as the basis for all staffing movements (new hire placement on the Terminal Placement List, whether a Hardship can go to a facility or not because they're over/under 100%, the NCEPT facility priority list, etc). The very essence of staffing movements depends on the PPT being locked in. If you go to the PPT page on KSN, there's a "interim PPT" that's edited every few weeks showing a more updated picture of staffing movements, but they specifically have language on there saying that this should not be used for staffing judgments, only the official excel spreadsheet, which is updated monthly and locked in.
To make staffing decisions not based on the locked in PPT is what's in question here. Hardships aren't considered at the NCEPT, there's nothing in the SOP about that, and seeing as I've seen many approved between NCEPT panels, it's clear they don't. If a hardship is approved after a PPT has locked in, and that locked in PPT is used for a NCEPT panel, the hardship staffing movement cannot be factored into the NCEPT as it isn't reflected on the locked in PPT. Again, that's why VGT got staffed to 140%: Their staffing level of ~70% got used for new hires, NEST movement, and NCEPT. Seeing as all three of those will staff VGT to 100%, they did, and VGT ended up with 140% staffing in the end, because they don't talk to each other.
I hadn't heard of unpublished PPTs being used as a basis for NCEPT panels before. That's pretty shady if true.
To make staffing decisions not based on the locked in PPT is what's in question here. Hardships aren't considered at the NCEPT, there's nothing in the SOP about that, and seeing as I've seen many approved between NCEPT panels, it's clear they don't. If a hardship is approved after a PPT has locked in, and that locked in PPT is used for a NCEPT panel, the hardship staffing movement cannot be factored into the NCEPT as it isn't reflected on the locked in PPT. Again, that's why VGT got staffed to 140%: Their staffing level of ~70% got used for new hires, NEST movement, and NCEPT. Seeing as all three of those will staff VGT to 100%, they did, and VGT ended up with 140% staffing in the end, because they don't talk to each other.
I hadn't heard of unpublished PPTs being used as a basis for NCEPT panels before. That's pretty shady if true.
SaltedLight
Member
- Messages
- 19
What about a facility that can gain 1-2. ATM sent in their ranking and that facility gained none. Even though I was told 9 people sent in ERR to that facility. Just seems odd that it was skipped over.
FightingIrish2012
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 1,874
Careful brother, the “transparency” of NCEPT is one of the main selling points the Agency and NATCA try to pass it off as. Everything is done based on numbers and formulas for the good of the NAS, and everyone gets to see every part of that.
It’s a simple way to justify how a 6 week experience CPC who wants to go to the 47th ranked facility will always get to leave in front of the 10 year CPC who trained him who applied for the 48th ranked facility.
People could gave gotten picked up at other places, facilities used their releases etc etc. Tons of reasons.
Per the SOP
3.1.1.The staffing workbook will be updated continuously by field air traffic control
(ATC) facilities.
3.1.2.The CPC Staffing Levels will be used as a basis to guide Agency placement
decisions, but do not guarantee ERR placement/selection.
And
3.5.6.The National Priority Placement Tool will be updated with each ERR placement
and the facility prioritization will be recalculated at the conclusion of each NCEPT meeting.
The list is not "locked in" it is a very dynamic list which changes consistently. If the list is published 2 weeks before the panel doesnt mean it's solid. I can't find anywhere in the SOP where it says the list can't be affected by other placements as well as it's a part of the DL tool to factor projected AOB and staffing levels.
I'm on RDOs, so I can't access KSN, but I know there's a line on the PPT page about only the excel spreadsheet being the official staffing reference. None of what you quoted from the SOP contradicts my point that the PPT is locked in monthly, and it is those numbers that everything else is drawn upon. It wouldn't make sense if that weren't the case; Imagine the Facility Priority List changing daily because of small tweaks in the PPT. That's not how it works.
I would not call this unpublished, these are corrections to errors that were brought up after the PPT posted late March. they are reflected in the interim PPT.
We see at least 2 facilities that have 0 releases and let 1 go. I know the specifics of 1 of them but it is not my place to go into specifics. In my case, corrections were made to the CPC number to reflect the true current staffing numbers. These number were reported incorrectly and posted on the official PPT document for the NCEPT selection. The fix was the correct move and follows the MOU. I cannot speak for MLU.
Phillyman2633
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 1,099
Has anyone heard an instance of someone being "unselected?"
I have never heard of this. I have heard of people offered a spot when it is determined a mistake was made. it is always worth looking into but don't get your hopes up.
