May (Q2) 2021

[kombucha23]

Also something to account for is the new training data (yearly) will be implemented soon. If it’s done before the 5/5 run it’ll throw the projecteds around and also move the projected national average.

Do you mean the training data (check out time, success rates, etc) will change to a yearly average instead of the 5 or 10 year average it currently is (I never knew for sure how long they used for the current data)?

 

[Move78]

Do you mean the training data (check out time, success rates, etc) will change to a yearly average instead of the 5 or 10 year average it currently is (I never knew for sure how long they used for the current data)?

As soon as a year of training data is 90% complete it gets inserted and the oldest year drops off. 90% complete means 90% of trainees onboarded in that year are no longer in a training status. This will alter success rates and training time in years and therefore alter projecteds.

 

[Spaceforce]

Do you mean the training data (check out time, success rates, etc) will change to a yearly average instead of the 5 or 10 year average it currently is (I never knew for sure how long they used for the current data)?

if they update it before the panel, a facility projected at 100% could jump above 105% and release someone. Same amount of trainees but success rate goes up

 

[the inquirer]

if they update it before the panel, a facility projected at 100% could jump above 105% and release someone. Same amount of trainees but success rate goes up

Unless they haven’t been training and will drop instead of go up.

 

[Move78]

Unless they haven’t been training and will drop instead of go up.

The new data will be from 2017 and 2012 will drop

 

[Flyaboveall]

Current national and projected averages are different. They change monthly once the new calculations are done. The only variable that remains the same with all this is the 85% that is (and has for years now) been used.

I interrupted the first round draft as this:
- Is your facility, at a minimum, staffed currently at 85%?
If “yes”, your facility can release.

- 1. Is the facility you’re trying to ERR to below 85%?
2. Is the facility also below the projected national average (91.04% as of now; this number fluctuates every month)?
3. Is the facility controller/trainee ratio below 30%?
If all three are “yes”, then this facility can accept people with ERR’s.

Round 2 makes no sense to me at the moment, so I’m going to idiotically ignore it and hope I’m correct with all my guesswork.

We good for Round 1, but the question is Round 2? If I’m at Grand Rapids (GRR) and want to go to DFW (below the projected National average but above 85%) or go to DAL (above the National average but below 100% though) can I get there or not??

 

[Move78]

We good for Round 1, but the question is Round 2? If I’m at Grand Rapids (GRR) and want to go to DFW (below the projected National average but above 85%) or go to DAL (above the National average but below 100% though) can I get there or not??

You have to be projected above 105 to be release eligible in round 2.

 

[Termine]

You have to be projected above 105 to be release eligible in round 2.

...and (at least the way I'm reading the NATCA PDF from a couple pages ago)

Releasing facility will stop releasing once it’s [sic] projected staffing average drops below 105%.

you have to be above 105% projected after taking into account any previous releases from the current NCEPT. They recalculate it every iteration. So it's essentially impossible to be at 105% projected when Round 1 ends, unless you have a boatload of trainees and/or no-one was picked up during Round 1 because their potential gaining facilities were above 85% current or 91% projected.

 

[Flyaboveall]

You have to be projected above 105 to be release eligible in round 2.

...and (at least the way I'm reading the NATCA PDF from a couple pages ago)



you have to be above 105% projected after taking into account any previous releases from the current NCEPT. They recalculate it every iteration. So it's essentially impossible to be at 105% projected when Round 1 ends, unless you have a boatload of trainees and/or no-one was picked up during Round 1 because their potential gaining facilities were above 85% current or 91% projected.

I get that part. If all of my coworkers have in for facilities way above 85% projected, think 90% and above (no one has in for any of those facilities below 85%). I’m more wondering about what facilities can pick up people? Above 85% projected, but below the projected national average (91%%) like DFW, above the projected national average (91%) but below 100% like DAL??

 

[Move78]

...and (at least the way I'm reading the NATCA PDF from a couple pages ago)



you have to be above 105% projected after taking into account any previous releases from the current NCEPT. They recalculate it every iteration. So it's essentially impossible to be at 105% projected when Round 1 ends, unless you have a boatload of trainees and/or no-one was picked up during Round 1 because their potential gaining facilities were above 85% current or 91% projected.

Or they just didn’t get selected because they weren’t ranked high enough

I get that part. If all of my coworkers have in for facilities way above 85% projected, think 90% and above (no one has in for any of those facilities below 85%). I’m more wondering about what facilities can pick up people? Above 85% projected, but below the projected national average (91%%) like DFW, above the projected national average (91%) but below 100% like DAL??

If their projected is below projected national avg and less than 30% trainees after round 1 they’ll be eligible to receive in round 2.
Round 1 you have to be below 85% AOB and below projected natl avg and less than 30% trainees in order to receive.

 

[Flyaboveall]

If their projected is below projected national avg and less than 30% trainees after round 1 they’ll be eligible to receive in round 2.
Round 1 you have to be below 85% AOB and below projected natl avg and less than 30% trainees in order to receive.

So DFW could pick someone up in Round 2 based on that. Can DAL pick up someone in Round 2 though? They are above the projected national average, but below 100%? DAL is at 97% projected

 

[Move78]

So DFW could pick someone up in Round 2 based on that. Can DAL pick up someone in Round 2 though? They are above the projected national average, but below 100%? DAL is at 97% projected

So DFW could pick someone up in Round 2 based on that. Can DAL pick up someone in Round 2 though? They are above the projected national average, but below 100%? DAL is at 97% projected

Are you trolling? Is this an inside joke?

 

[Flyaboveall]

Are you trolling? Is this an inside joke?

Lol. It’s a serious question though. Is DAL an actual possibility in that case?

 

[Shikaka]

Lol. It’s a serious question though. Is DAL an actual possibility in that case?

DAL is not going to be eligible for any selections.

 

[CaptainObvious]

God damn this shit got confusing. Hey Lebovidge just swallow your pride and admit this shit doesn’t work

 

[Spaceforce]

God damn this shit got confusing. Hey Lebovidge just swallow your pride and admit this shit doesn’t work

From the south? I think if more than 70% of people don’t like the ncept, we should review it with idk maybe not the same people that created it. Use the same percentage the FAA loves.

 

[GulfCharlie]

God damn this shit got confusing. Hey Lebovidge just swallow your pride and admit this shit doesn’t work

“Listen here you little shit...” Oh wait wrong conference call.

 

[Termine]

L30, SCT, NCT, SDF, ORF, A80, STL, BOS, C90, TEB, JFK, ANC, ORD, SDF, ICT
I guess these are the only facilities able to select on this upcoming panel. What a joke.

How did you come up with this again? I went through the April PPT and:

1. Sorted by projected %-to-target (column AA), deleted all rows where this number was 90.1% or greater.
2. Sorted current %-to-target (column L), deleted all rows where this number was 85% or greater.
3. Sorted by current trainee-to-CPC ratio (column AF), deleted all rows where this number was 30% or greater.

This left me with:

A11 A80 A90 ACY ANC ATL BOI BOS C90 CMH D01 D10 DAB DFW EWR F11 I90 IAH ICT JFK L30 LAS M98 MEM MSY NCT ORD ORF PHL PUB SCT SDF STL TEB ZPA ZAB ZBW ZDV ZFW ZID ZKC ZMA ZME ZOB ZSE

but it's certainly possible I'm interpreting something wrong (the "projected national averages plural" probably). And of course the May PPT will change everything.

 

[corn4ahead]

I think this is right. If the wording didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out, maybe I would’ve understood the first time.

Good work.

 

[jamisjockey]

How did you come up with this again? I went through the April PPT and:

1. Sorted by projected %-to-target (column AA), deleted all rows where this number was 90.1% or greater.
2. Sorted current %-to-target (column L), deleted all rows where this number was 85% or greater.
3. Sorted by current trainee-to-CPC ratio (column AF), deleted all rows where this number was 30% or greater.

This left me with:

A11 A80 A90 ACY ANC ATL BOI BOS C90 CMH D01 D10 DAB DFW EWR F11 I90 IAH ICT JFK L30 LAS M98 MEM MSY NCT ORD ORF PHL PUB SCT SDF STL TEB ZPA ZAB ZBW ZDV ZFW ZID ZKC ZMA ZME ZOB ZSE

but it's certainly possible I'm interpreting something wrong (the "projected national averages plural" probably). And of course the May PPT will change everything.

Any way to figure out where facilities fall in the releases side off this?