Facility Downgrades / Upgrades

Termine said:
It sounds bad, and it is bad, but keep in mind that TCI levels are not linear. I plotted them out and the curve is actually polynomial, so there's a linear component but a quadratic component as well. The max curve is a better fit than the min curve, partly because of the min dropping to a defined "0" where the max doesn't.
Click to expand...
Where do you find this info?
 
Termine said:
It sounds bad, and it is bad
Click to expand...
Good on you for nerding out. I definitely understand the numbers/formula panning out for that to be the case, but I think the first part of your post is the most important. "It sounds bad, and it is bad" is pretty much all we need to know.

It seems as if NATCA leadership/executives gives zero f*cks about anything that is less than a level 10 and would be more than okay with the FAA en-masse consolidating several towers down to level 4 and bumping a consolidating facility up one level. Pretty soon there will be nothing but level 4/5 tower only, level 7 up/downs with massive approach coverage (AZO and BUF as examples), and level 10-12 towers and centers. I'm not disputing the logic of it, I'm disputing the humanity of it; and that difference definitely seems to be a disconnect for a lot of people.
 
Logical_Mongoose said:
Good on you for nerding out. I definitely understand the numbers/formula panning out for that to be the case, but I think the first part of your post is the most important. "It sounds bad, and it is bad" is pretty much all we need to know.

It seems as if NATCA leadership/executives gives zero f*cks about anything that is less than a level 10 and would be more than okay with the FAA en-masse consolidating several towers down to level 4 and bumping a consolidating facility up one level. Pretty soon there will be nothing but level 4/5 tower only, level 7 up/downs with massive approach coverage (AZO and BUF as examples), and level 10-12 towers and centers. I'm not disputing the logic of it, I'm disputing the humanity of it; and that difference definitely seems to be a disconnect for a lot of people.
Click to expand...
The Agency is going to do whatever is cheaper. And there are many controllers that would rather have everything consolidated. But no one cares about anything on this board except their own self interest
 
No one is willing to put up the fight for these small BFE facilities to upgrade. To get the upgrade they would have to use the argument that would theoretically be the same argument that would downgrade numerous facilities.
 
Logical_Mongoose said:
Pretty soon there will be nothing but level 4/5 tower only, level 7 up/downs with massive approach coverage (AZO and BUF as examples), and level 10-12 towers and centers.
Click to expand...
This would be awesome, too bad they put all that on hold until the N90 realignment project is done but now that is going to take a extra 2.5 years or more then they vowed to get it done in.
 
YeeeeYeeee said:
No one is willing to put up the fight for these small BFE facilities to upgrade. To get the upgrade they would have to use the argument that would theoretically be the same argument that would downgrade numerous facilities.
Click to expand...
It’s handle in the contract appendix. Read the clause. You don’t need some kind of favoritism.
 
Move78 said:
It’s handle in the contract appendix. Read the clause. You don’t need some kind of favoritism.
Click to expand...
Just by you saying that shows how clueless you are in the process. You don’t think favoritism goes into the process?? Go look at facility traffic counts and come back to me. Facilities needed to be downgraded that have been below thresholds for over 2 years. Facilities that have over been over their thresholds for years, still waiting for an upgrade.

Also, we all know that the contract should be adjusted, but it would benefit little facilities and hurt big facilities. I’ve been told by numerous high level tower controllers that I work harder at my little shit level 6 facility. Unfortunately, air carriers carry more weight than 12+ GA aircraft in the pattern.
 
YeeeeYeeee said:
Just by you saying that shows how clueless you are in the process. You don’t think favoritism goes into the process?? Go look at facility traffic counts and come back to me. Facilities needed to be downgraded that have been below thresholds for over 2 years. Facilities that have over been over their thresholds for years, still waiting for an upgrade.

Also, we all know that the contract should be adjusted, but it would benefit little facilities and hurt big facilities. I’ve been told by numerous high level tower controllers that I work harder at my little shit level 6 facility. Unfortunately, air carriers carry more weight than 12+ GA aircraft in the pattern.
Click to expand...
You’re still not reading the appendix. There’s a part in it for projections and written reports submitted by the ATM. So you can be red for an extended period of time if your ATM can successfully blame it on something like runway construction etc. That’s the favoritism you’re referring to. Also if there was no subjectivity in the downgrade process almost the whole NAS would’ve went down during Covid.
What facilities have satisfied the 5 requirements from appendix A for years without an upgrade?
Traffic count is only 1 part of the formula. The air carriers comment is misleading as well. Any IFR counts as 1.5 and vfr is 1.0.
Just because you work harder than the 12 tower guy is not relevant to the appendix as written. It means you think the appendix should be changed. Also the union has stated an intent to adjust that once ABACUS is finished in 2019 (2090)
 
Last edited:
Move78 said:
You’re still not reading the appendix. There’s a part in it for projections and written reports submitted by the ATM. So you can be red for an extended period of time if your ATM can successfully blame it on something like runway construction etc. That’s the favoritism you’re referring to. Also if there was no subjectivity in the downgrade process almost the whole NAS would’ve went down during Covid.
What facilities have satisfied the 5 requirements from appendix A for years without an upgrade?
Traffic count is only 1 part of the formula. The air carriers comment is misleading as well. Any IFR counts as 1.5 and vfr is 1.0.
Just because you work harder than the 12 tower guy is not relevant to the appendix as written. It means you think the appendix should be changed. Also the union has stated an intent to adjust that once ABACUS is finished in 2019 (2090)
Click to expand...
Go look at DLH. 7 months above and still shot down.
 
YeeeeYeeee said:
Go look at DLH. 7 months above and still shot down.
Click to expand...
We're just not seeing the super fine fine print in the contract. They have super high resolution screens and better bandwidth at the NVT meetings that let them understand why some facilities need more than 3 months above the break point. Our feeble peon minds could never understand the complexity they must decipher.
 
YeeeeYeeee said:
Go look at DLH. 7 months above and still shot down.
Click to expand...
I have no information on this. But they’ve dropped below the breakpoint.
Did the ATM provide a 12 month traffic projection that demonstrates that the activity will remain at or above the breakpoint?
Did they pass the validation? There’s a lot of fake traffic count in towers.
 

Similar threads

J
  • Question
Slate Book, Appendix B. D3 Pay
Replies
5
Views
594
jfol
J
FloopThePig
I just got warned of a "pattern" in my sick leave from taking the last few Fridays off for fatigue leave. How will this affect me, if at all?
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Thebullisback
T
C
Fixing NCEPT/academy placement
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
9K
SquawkHijack
SquawkHijack
G
NEST LIST ANY AND ALL HELP IS WELCOME
Replies
5
Views
3K
FightingIrish2012
F
FloopThePig
Gaum Bid Questions
Replies
18
Views
3K
Raise when?
Raise when?
Back
Top Bottom