NCEPT debate thread
- Thread starter DeltaEEZulu
- Start date
I really wish people would get the idea out of their heads that level = difficulty. It's USUALLY true for like type facilities (i.e. comparing two VFR towers or two ARTCC's) but it's RARELY true for different type facilities. I can name level 6 and 7 VFR towers that are objectively more difficult than level 10 centers, for example.
As far as transferring goes, after you've gotten CPC at your first facility, just let people try wherever they want next. They very likely didn't want to be at their crappy low level tower and the person at their level 7-9 up/down very likely did, so why punish the low level guy even more? You're going to start getting people who avoid low level facilities like the absolute career-death-sentence they're turning into and start going DOD, contract, or just quitting outright which makes these low level places even more miserable.
Mike Kilo
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,844
Again, all I'm saying is that the applicant that has already started at a level seven. Moved to mid level facility and certified is MORE qualified than a new hire at a level seven or below. You can't really argue against that. I'm not saying people at low level facilities can't make it, as many have proven otherwise. What I am saying is that I believe in a career progression that looks at people's time and experience in the agency.
There will always be people to staff the low level facilities. Between new hires and washouts, if the agency would distribute new employees well, and staff 9s and below to 100%, low levels employees would never be stuck due to staffing like a lot of mid level facilities. I don't agree with prior experience new hires going to mid level facilities if that facility has an ERR list, those spots should go to FAA employees. Again, if you look at a the majority of movement since NCEPT started, it has been from low level facilities.
So, just curious, you have one guy who's been at a level 5 VFR tower trying to get to DEN for 6 years. You have another guy at a level 7 up/down who's been trying to get to DEN for 9 months. Both are coming from their first facilities they've been to. DEN can take one person. Who gets to go?
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
Depends. How long have they each been in the FAA?
Maybe the level 7 controller has been in the FAA for 15 years and even though he planned to stay at that level 7 forever, his son is now going to college in Colorado. Sounds like a good reason to apply for DEN.
Maybe the level 5 controller is a terrible controller....or hasn't worked at air carriers at all in 6 years.
Or it could be the total opposite.
There's reasons that one could be selected over the other. You didn't provide enough info.
He said both are coming from their first facilities so time in the FAA should be 9 months and 6 years. Nothing else in your post should have any bearing
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
Serious? You think a level 5 tower controller that's only worked that one facility for 6 years, having never talked to anything bigger than a Citation or King Air, is going to be anywhere near the top of an ATMs list to come to a level 12 facility that deals strictly with air carriers?
That’s because DEN is known as an easy way to get your 12 pay! They probably have not had a problem with low level vfr tower people certifying therefore they make the case to continue to pick them up; even if they are the facrep at their vfr tower and had campaigned for the rvp who is married to DEN controller who used to dog sit for the DEN facrep. Their qualified, damnit!
Last edited:
ajmezz
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 858
Maybe they look at it from the view of the level 5 vfr tower is most likely busier than the tower of a level 7 up/down and want someone who can handle a high volume as opposed to type. IMO It's easier to learn how to work different types of airframes than it is to work a larger influx of traffic.
- Messages
- 68
Does prior NON-FAA get considered??? Might have something to do with it.
Stinger
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,496
Last quarter with the SMO selection, she was on her third facility at SMO. California, then Nevada, then SMO.
FY16 4th quarter, selected from PAE (her only facility, FAA for only a couple years), and from SDL (been there multiple years).
So the one from PAE is the only one that's odd.
vectorwagon
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 183
Honestly that's probably exactly how it happened.
It's not about what the ATM wants, I'm just trying to see which you think is more fair. If you (and the union leadership) honestly think that there's no such thing as doing your time at somewhere no one wants to be in order to just get a shot at somewhere you want, like I said people are going to take any options they have available before accepting a low level tower.
I thought there was an option on the controllers part to elect to go up to 6 months vice 3 from being selected?
Additionally I have a spreadsheet I created that shows since the inception of the new ERR process the average jump of a controller at a 4/5/6 moving up is 5.2x levels out of 734 selections. Therefore it is bypassing normal career progression and all the mid level facilities unless you're from a 4. That's one of the biggest problems with the new ERR process is there's no level cap like with hardships or mutual swaps. This data will be refined and presented to Andrew Lebovidge to argue for change.
Additionally I have a spreadsheet I created that shows since the inception of the new ERR process the average jump of a controller at a 4/5/6 moving up is 5.2x levels out of 734 selections. Therefore it is bypassing normal career progression and all the mid level facilities unless you're from a 4. That's one of the biggest problems with the new ERR process is there's no level cap like with hardships or mutual swaps. This data will be refined and presented to Andrew Lebovidge to argue for change.
