NCEPT debate thread

[Maintainvfr]

I'd absolutely be for removing return rights

On the other side of this, I've had multiple people tell me they want to eliminate the NEST system and only have return rights. The argument is that some people shot gun everything just to get out of their facility and "play the NEST lotto."

 

[breakaway2000]

What about people who shotgun blast ERRs, accept the first taker, then withdraw from training after 6 weeks and return to their old facility because they didn’t like the seniority or days off or the possibility of being stuck there, knew they’d be a quick checkout back home then could go try to err to some other place real quick? Think those people should be barred for awhile?

I believe the vast majority of people here are in favor of incorporating the swap rule in Article 42 for ERR's as well, which reads...

Section 8. Mutual reassignment transfer requests may be submitted to the
same, higher, or lower ATC FPL facility, for employees who have a
minimum of one (1) year as a certified controller at his/her facility.

If there was language added that reset the 1 year clock on the 2nd certification at the same facility, I wouldn't have a problem with that to prevent what you're talking about above. It would also prevent someone from legitimately washing from a facility, returning, certifying quickly, and bidding back out.

Yeah you can withdraw your paperwork up to the last day before the selection, but then let's say your release date is a year out. Then something happens between getting picked up and getting to your new facility. I don't think that's them shafting anyone, they're just between a rock and a hard place.

For the sake of debate, what reasons do you feel are acceptable to turn down an FOL during that waiting period that wouldn't prompt a hardship? (For the record, I believe any event that triggers a legitimate hardship is a valid reason to turn down a TOL/FOL after signing it.)

if you all are going to debate people who turn down a selections, or don’t pull their ERRs, and they should be penalized, might as well discuss people with suspect hardships transfers to circumnavigate the ncept process. Such as They should have to stay at the facility they get for x amount of years or months. There will always be scammers, and for every one there might be a legitimate person who just so happens to do the exact same thing people complain about. It would be very difficult to institute a blanket rule for any one of these things without screwing people over.

I can assure you the NATCA members on the NCEPT board are aware of the people who have done this (Hardship out, immediately ERR to a different location 100's of miles away after CPC-ing) and they are working to fix the loophole. Given that NATCA is involved in the hardship process, it isn't difficult to know who's done it and who's trying to.

 

[16gtiguy]

I am totally on board for a 1 year requirement, you should never take away return rights, it’s a great thing that helps many of our brothers and sisters, however I do believe that if you had to be CPC for 1 year at your facility to participate in ncept it would limit both the shotgunners and those that withdraw, return and bid out again.

 

[Maintainvfr]

I believe the vast majority of people here are in favor of incorporating the swap rule in Article 42 for ERR's as well, which reads...

Section 8. Mutual reassignment transfer requests may be submitted to the
same, higher, or lower ATC FPL facility, for employees who have a
minimum of one (1) year as a certified controller at his/her facility.

If there was language added that reset the 1 year clock on the 2nd certification at the same facility, I wouldn't have a problem with that to prevent what you're talking about above. It would also prevent someone from legitimately washing from a facility, returning, certifying quickly, and bidding back out.

For the sake of debate, what reasons do you feel are acceptable to turn down an FOL during that waiting period that wouldn't prompt a hardship? (For the record, I believe any event that triggers a legitimate hardship is a valid reason to turn down a TOL/FOL after signing it.)



I can assure you the NATCA members on the NCEPT board are aware of the people who have done this (Hardship out, immediately ERR to a different location 100's of miles away after CPC-ing) and they are working to fix the loophole. Given that NATCA is involved in the hardship process, it isn't difficult to know who's done it and who's trying to.

Well I think most of them would be the same reasons. The examples earlier of not being able to sell your house or spouse not being able to transfer I don't agree with. I'm not entirely sober right now so the only thing that's jumping to my mind is if a relative or close friend attempted suicide or something along those lines. I had to deal with that a year or so ago, now I didn't have a release or paperwork in, but I'm positive that if I did I would have pulled it. And I'm not the kind of person to share that at work so everyone would have hated me.

Again, super specific scenario. And I still think the post-TOL buffer wouldn't hurt someone in that situation because they would want to stay there anyways

 

[KnockKnock]

On the other side of this, I've had multiple people tell me they want to eliminate the NEST system and only have return rights. The argument is that some people shot gun everything just to get out of their facility and "play the NEST lotto."

Eliminate the NEST; if you wash out you go where the agency needs you. No more safety net. Take your transfers seriously and ease up the levels to find where you belong or go to mwh

 

[16gtiguy]

Eliminate the NEST; if you wash out you go where the agency needs you. No more safety net. Take your transfers seriously and ease up the levels to find where you belong or go to mwh

I disagree, while I don’t agree with playing the nest lotto, the nest is a way of retaining qualified people. If you have a cpc from a 10 that goes to 12 and washes why would you not want to retain that person. If you give them options they will pick one and stay with the agency. If you say your going to backhills nowhere then they might walk away, I know I would.

Just because you have losers that take advantage of a system doesn’t mean the system is bad, you just need to close loopholes are get rid of the bad apples

 

[BC1234]

I can assure you the NATCA members on the NCEPT board are aware of the people who have done this (Hardship out, immediately ERR to a different location 100's of miles away after CPC-ing) and they are working to fix the loophole. Given that NATCA is involved in the hardship process, it isn't difficult to know who's done it and who's trying to.

I wasn’t just talking about those people who hardship then err far away. I was saying any hardship that was created, or embellished just to get out and get where you want. Even if they stay in that area. You screw your current facility and coworkers and force the agency to put you somewhere they might not have that is low priority compared to where others want to go. Many people hate those individuals, others say well it’s a dog eat dog world they did what they had to do. I personally think those people should stay at the facility they get for 5 years. But I realize that’s unfair and will screw people with legitimate hardships who are also looking to move up or fill their career needs elsewhere as well as their family needs.

I’m curious, what is being discussed by the union to fix that loophole?

 

[breakaway2000]

I wasn’t just talking about those people who hardship then err far away. I was saying any hardship that was created, or embellished just to get out and get where you want. Even if they stay in that area. You screw your current facility and coworkers and force the agency to put you somewhere they might not have that is low priority compared to where others want to go. Many people hate those individuals, others say well it’s a dog eat dog world they did what they had to do. I personally think those people should stay at the facility they get for 5 years. But I realize that’s unfair and will screw people with legitimate hardships who are also looking to move up or fill their career needs elsewhere as well as their family needs.

I’m curious, what is being discussed by the union to fix that loophole?

Hardships certainly aren't going away. I think you'd be amazed at how many hardship request are denied by people trying to game the system (No doctors notes, supporting documents, etc.). For instance, the rate of denied hardships has skyrocketed since the start of the NCEPT. I would have no issue tying them to a 50 miles radius for X amount of years following a hardship.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Eliminate the NEST; if you wash out you go where the agency needs you. No more safety net. Take your transfers seriously and ease up the levels to find where you belong or go to mwh

See, but then you're discouraging people from trying to further their career. Then the people at mid range facilities are going to be even more frustrated when people are making smaller jumps and they become a revolving door of people using them as a stepping stone.

Let's say Joe controller is at an 11 tower and wants to work radar. He goes to an 8 up down near his home and washes because some people just don't get radar. You wanna send this guy to MWH?

The reality is there is no perfect system. I mean even in this thread, someone wants ONLY return rights. Someone else wants NO return rights. You want no return rights and no NEST. The system isn't perfect but I don't know many fixes that wouldn't piss off even more people.

This is pretty off topic but I've hung out with the MWH rep a few times and that training data is super backwards from the current situation there. They're getting tons of trainees that are almost all going to check out, and then they're going to be eligible to release by the truckload.

 

[James]

Just get rid of ncept and people wouldn’t be scamming anything. I’d happily take a 2 year release date.

 

[ajmezz]

I stick by overloading the 7 and belows with all new hires, no matter their experience. Put a time frame post certification, like 6 months-1 year, before they're eligible to err out. That way new cert's don't pass up cpc's trying to leave right when they check out.

 

[Stinger]

get rid of the bad apples

I'd be much happier if that was easier to do.

 

[BC1234]

I stick by overloading the 7 and belows with all new hires, no matter their experience. Put a time frame post certification, like 6 months-1 year, before they're eligible to err out. That way new cert's don't pass up cpc's trying to leave right when they check out.

Years of experience doesn’t equate to more deserving in every case. Sometimes it’s exactly the opposite. Like Maintainvfr said above there is no perfect system. Bad apples, scammers, complainers and injustices will continue to occur, sometimes people just need to deal with where they are, work hard to train their replacement and do better for their facility and hope their number is up next time. I’m not saying don’t try to change it, but to fit everyone in a neat box screws people. I believe the union should be for the greater good, but people screw it up because they think it’s there for their benefit and their benefit alone. Sometimes people complaining screws their brothers and sisters. Tough decisions have to be made and things like the ncept are good for the system as a whole I really believe that, it just may take a few years to get the system up to what is proper staffing everywhere. But then you’ll have people who complain they don’t get overtime....and so the world turns.

 

[ajmezz]

Years of experience doesn’t equate to more deserving in every case. Sometimes it’s exactly the opposite. Like Maintainvfr said above there is no perfect system. Bad apples, scammers, complainers and injustices will continue to occur, sometimes people just need to deal with where they are, work hard to train their replacement and do better for their facility and hope their number is up next time. I’m not saying don’t try to change it, but to fit everyone in a neat box screws people. I believe the union should be for the greater good, but people screw it up because they think it’s there for their benefit and their benefit alone. Sometimes people complaining screws their brothers and sisters. Tough decisions have to be made and things like the ncept are good for the system as a whole I really believe that, it just may take a few years to get the system up to what is proper staffing everywhere. But then you’ll have people who complain they don’t get overtime....and so the world turns.

Do you believe the suggestions I made screw people in some way? If so, how? I agree there is no perfect system and someone will find something to complain about no matter what, but there are definitely improvements that can be made, which I'm sure we all would agree. I think the NCEPT can be a good system as long as they keep tweaking it for the better when they can. Obviously the biggest issue is lack of staffing across the board and that's just something we all have to deal with until it improves.

 

[BC1234]

Do you believe the suggestions I made screw people in some way? If so, how? I agree there is no perfect system and someone will find something to complain about no matter what, but there are definitely improvements that can be made, which I'm sure we all would agree. I think the NCEPT can be a good system as long as they keep tweaking it for the better when they can. Obviously the biggest issue is lack of staffing across the board and that's just something we all have to deal with until it improves.

Sometimes the new cert leaving is better for system rather than letting a mediocre or whiny senior controller have the ability to leave instead, that could screw the facility they go to. In my opinion seniority shouldn’t be a determining factor at all with release dates. You can find a problem with every suggestion. I was only using your post as an example, I didn’t mean to use you specifically. I wasn’t calling you out just to challenge you. I just wanted to make the point that’s all. I think the ncept is the best system in years. Let it play out for a few more years and see where it gets us. The faa seems to be hiring a good amount of people. Let it settle down, I don’t think the faa is screwing us as a whole and the union did agree to it, just because specific members don’t agree doesn’t make it bad or sinister. I find more problems with peoples training styles and abilities holding back the ncept fluidity compared to the ncept process itself. That’s what needs to be reworked. Plus Ridiculous release dates, and management allowing facilities to be screwed for years just cuz they liked a few people and let them go rather than using their head was an awful system.

 

[ajmezz]

Sometimes the new cert leaving is better for system rather than letting a mediocre or whiny senior controller have the ability to leave instead, that could screw the facility they go to. In my opinion seniority shouldn’t be a determining factor at all with release dates. You can find a problem with every suggestion. I was only using your post as an example, I didn’t mean to use you specifically. I wasn’t calling you out just to challenge you. I just wanted to make the point that’s all. I think the ncept is the best system in years. Let it play out for a few more years and see where it gets us. The faa seems to be hiring a good amount of people. Let it settle down, I don’t think the faa is screwing us as a whole and the union did agree to it, just because specific members don’t agree doesn’t make it bad or sinister. I find more problems with peoples training styles and abilities holding back the ncept fluidity compared to the ncept process itself. That’s what needs to be reworked. Plus Ridiculous release dates, and management allowing facilities to be screwed for years just cuz they liked a few people and let them go rather than using their head was an awful system.

Yeah, no worries, I didn't think you were. It was just pure curiosity on my part. I don't believe seniority should play a factor in release dates either, but I do think everyone should have a fair shot at leaving after training a replacement before that replacement gets a chance to bounce. If you put a time frame post cert, then it at least gives people the opportunity to move forward with their career. If they only want 1 or 2 very sought after facilities, then they could be waiting a long time, but at least they are given a chance every so often. Everyone has told me before and while in, "pay your dues/do your time and move up," but this system, in its current form, doesn't allow for that. Instead it encourages people to just game the system (false hardships, nest lottery, etc) to get out of their facility in hopes of a more desirable location and potentially rinse, repeat. And I agree, with the FAA hiring more and more people, hopefully we start seeing a more fluid process within a couple years. I wasn't in for the old system, but I'm surprised (well, not really) the FAA didn't just change it so you have no other ERR's in the system after you were selected somewhere like they do now. Could have solved a lot of the issues with just that simple change from what I hear.

 

[ehmeye]

Sometimes the new cert leaving is better for system rather than letting a mediocre or whiny senior controller have the ability to leave instead, that could screw the facility they go to. In my opinion seniority shouldn’t be a determining factor at all with release dates. You can find a problem with every suggestion. I was only using your post as an example, I didn’t mean to use you specifically. I wasn’t calling you out just to challenge you. I just wanted to make the point that’s all. I think the ncept is the best system in years. Let it play out for a few more years and see where it gets us. The faa seems to be hiring a good amount of people. Let it settle down, I don’t think the faa is screwing us as a whole and the union did agree to it, just because specific members don’t agree doesn’t make it bad or sinister. I find more problems with peoples training styles and abilities holding back the ncept fluidity compared to the ncept process itself. That’s what needs to be reworked. Plus Ridiculous release dates, and management allowing facilities to be screwed for years just cuz they liked a few people and let them go rather than using their head was an awful system.

You think a brand new CPC is better than a "mediocre" controller? Who determines mediocrity, you? What does "whiny" mean? Is someone at a facility that hasn't been able to release a single controller since NCEPT was instituted, "whiny"? You plan to eliminate seniority in RDO and vacation bidding too?

I'm glad I got out of my first facility before this system was put into place. My coworkers at the old facility are still 2 years away from being able to even release one controller. That is grim and this dumb system is to blame for it.

 

[HenryTheAce]

All are good points. I could get behind the 6 month to a year CPC before being eligible to put in for an ERR. However, as someone who certified and put in paperwork within the week to ERR out, there was no one else trying to err out of my facility accept other newly certified CPC’s. We would’ve all just been waiting around for 1yr CPC to ERR out, meanwhile the numbers could’ve changed from being elligible to release people to releasing no one.

 

[BC1234]

You think a brand new CPC is better than a "mediocre" controller? Who determines mediocrity, you? What does "whiny" mean? Is someone at a facility that hasn't been able to release a single controller since NCEPT was instituted, "whiny"? You plan to eliminate seniority in RDO and vacation bidding too?

I'm glad I got out of my first facility before this system was put into place. My coworkers at the old facility are still 2 years away from being able to even release one controller. That is grim and this dumb system is to blame for it.

I don’t think the new cert is better all the time or even often, that’s why I said sometimes. But it can happen. I don’t determine mediocre at all, I meant mediocre on an objective set of standards. And no I would not consider someone stuck at those facilities whiny at all. How many of them are there? Really, can anyone answer that? I believe This system is prevent that from happening in the future and it is awful for those people currently there. But sometimes you have to make that tough decision so management doesn’t have the opportunity to screw people on a whim or a bad decision. However, people at the facilities that have become a training facility complaining it isn’t “their turn” when the faa is pumping new trainees in and with the academy placement list showing that trend will continue is whiny. They will get out soon. And no I believe seniority should always be the determining factor for rdo and leave. I’m glad you got out too and I understand it’s awful for the ones you left behind. But If you care about those people, should you not care about the newbies coming in? Should they not get to go where they want? Because They are exactly the same people you just haven’t met them yet, obviously I’m making an unrealistic comment as you did with your rdo comment. I think the ncept is a good system to increase everyone’s chances rather than the select few who get an ear of someone who would let them go. Fair and equitable for everyone is what I care about.

 

[DankVectorz]

I'll try to cross-reference when I get to work later to find out how many have been successful, but since 2013, N90 has washed out 31 direct hires. 24 of which didn't progress past the first stage of training. A80 has washed out 4.

So I haven't been following this thread and realize I'm quite late, but where is your source for this? I started at N90 in 2014 and was the last new hire to go to N90 until middle of 2017. And I only saw maybe 3 or 4 people wash out (out of VRA and cpc-it), the rest withdrew from training. In my class of 4, 3 were VRA new hires and one was a CPC transfer from ZAU and it was the ZAU transfer who washed out in the lab. 2 of us VRA's certified (both at minimum hours) and the other withdrew because she didn't want to be stuck on Long Island. Probably 75% of the withdrawals happened when the ERR MOU was announced. Lots of people bid here for the $28k move money and a way out and then withdrew from training to get offered a huge list (center controllers were given their pick of any center in the country).

Part of the problem was that until a couple years ago, the FAA didnt look at what experience military Controllers had and treated them all equally. This meant people from slow Army Guard towers were getting sent to level 12 TRACONS. They don't do that anymore. There's only a hand ful of about 6-7 bases between all the branches that are offered level 10+ now.