Maintainvfr
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 528
Wasnt it Andrew L & Robey? Either way
For just the NCEPT team yeah, but I mean the northeast as a whole
NCEPT debate thread
- Thread starter DeltaEEZulu
- Start date
For just the NCEPT team yeah, but I mean the northeast as a whole
CaptainObvious
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,138
That quote makes no senseLeader of NCEPT says in update: if your facility is short you might need to "train your way out of it" . No word on what to do when all the ppl you train then ERR out.
View attachment 2511
P
PushingTin
Guest
He's in over his head.
This is crap. Our low level up/down hasn’t been able to release even ONE SINGLE PERSON since the NCEPT went into play a few years ago. Literally, NOT ONE. And we have absolutely no hope of a release coming anytime soon. So why is “train your way out of it” complete BS:Leader of NCEPT says in update: if your facility is short you might need to "train your way out of it" . No word on what to do when all the ppl you train then ERR out.
View attachment 2511
1. We aren’t being sent enough new people from the academy or otherwise. Not even close.
2. The employees that are fine with staying here forever are in absolutely no rush to help us get our numbers. In fact, they don’t want us to reach our numbers.
3. Training is averaging 2+ years here. No joke. And many of the the employees, as stated above, are completely fine with training take that long.
4. Retirements and hardships are coming more often than certs. We even have a few people who are applying for any sup jobs around the country that they think they can possibly get.
5. Half of the facility is desperate to ERR out (10 or so people), so when (and if) we do actually reach our numbers one day, it’ll be quite tense around here. Say it takes us 5 years (which is wishful thinking) to release our first person, then who’s to say it won’t take another 5 years to release even a second person.
The current NCEPT does not work for low level facilities like ours. I think I read somewhere on here that there are around 16 low-mid level up/downs that haven’t released even one person. Geez. All we want is for a chance to move up in our careers.
And to add to my above statement for those who think a level cap is a good idea. Why should someone (like myself) with many years ATC experience between Air Force, Contract, DoD, and FAA, but happened to get stuck at a very low level, black hole facility, have to slowly work their way up to even have the chance to try and make it at the highest level? I figure I have just as much of a shot at making it as any other guy who got hired straight to a Center from the Air Force or academy. There are some great controllers out there who are literally stuck at the bottom. It’s not their fault, so why punish them further by closing more doors to them getting where they want to be ... and where they could, quite possibly, do well.
Dontbotherme
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 876
Because, in the terminal environment, low level transfers have a significantly lower success rate than those coming from 9s and above. There is no reason a level 5 up/down should be able to transfer straight to a A80, C90, D10, etc. NCEPT isn’t about background or quality, it is about availability and it has been a colossal failure.
Electricfence
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 373
Management screwed your facility before the ncpet even began. this is why the ncept began. then the local union collaboratively set an unrealistic target number. let me guess developmentals are used for staffing most shifts on most days? The local union can do something about that. it takes 2 years to certify because trainees need to see traffic and OJTI and Devs don't want to waste their time with the low hours?Again, the local union can and should be doing something about that. How many trainees do you have? how much overtime do you get?
this is an unfortunate reality and the national office sees no need to truly address your particular staffing situation because it only affects a very small percentage of the BUEs
P
PushingTin
Guest
If the head of NCEPT is ignorant and in his ivory tower w dual Level 10/11 controller incomes, then there is little hope that anyone with any power will be the champion for change we all need. When they get the power they get intoxicated with interacting w management and feel important. Some might call it (but I never would, that would be bad and wrong!) SELLING OUT.
I'm working on an email to the NATCA NCEPT members highlighting the concerns I've heard not only here, but at my facility, and my personal observations. It's long, but please tell me what y'all think before I send it off.
Good morning brothers
As I'm sure you are aware, NCEPT is a very unpopular process among much of the membership. I think a lot of that stems from the way in which it was implemented. I think a lot of members feel that it was poorly thought out, rushed, and there was no effort on the part of NATCA leadership to get feedback regarding any proposed changes. We were simply told that "changes to the ERR process were coming", but there was no further communication beyond that. As a former FacRep, I understand that there are many things you cannot immediately bring to the membership because in doing so, it would compromise the negotiation process. However, this is one thing that I feel should have been brought to the members to solicit ideas and constructive feedback. As a result, our brothers and sisters are at each other's throats in an attempt to get out of their current facility and move up in their career. The numbers I have seen in terms of transfers attaining CPC status at their new facilities are abysmal, and on top of that, the NCEPT process has encouraged the membership to bid management positions because it is the only way to get out.
I say all that to suggest proposed changes to the NCEPT process (many of these are concerns I have been hearing through the grapevine, but I am only speaking on behalf of myself).
1) Implement a level cap throughout the process. I propose 4 levels. You have many CPC-ITs transferring from Level 4s to Level 12s and washing out since they don't have the background to work busier, more structured traffic. They are simply chasing the list. In this manner, a level 4 controller can go up to a mid-level 8, cut their teeth there, and from there move up to a 12. I feel like this will increase training success rates.
2) Remove trainees (Devs and CPC-ITs) from the PPT. Yes, it may look great on paper and provide more opportunities for CPCs to move on, but by factoring trainees into the equation, it provides a skewed picture of the actual staffing situation. CPCs should be the only one's displayed on the PPT (I say this as a CPC-IT myself).
3) Provide more flexibility with Cat 1 and Cat 2 release dates. At first, I thought one good thing that came from implementing NCEPT was that 2+ year release dates were all but eliminated. When I reported to my new facility, I discovered that that is not always a good thing. Right now, my facility has almost as many trainees as we do CPCs. Many of us reported here around the same time. This created a training backlog that could have been alleviated if the receiving ATM could have more flexibility in when trainees report. This way, those already there can get more time to certify so the new batch of trainees can actually get some quality training because there is a much smaller backlog.
4) Impose a penalty for habitual offer denials. There are some controllers who have no real intention of actually leaving their facility, they simply don't want others to leave either so they are extended an offer and they continuously turn it down. I propose that a member can turn down one offer without penalty. I get it. Sometimes stuff happens and your life plans change and you can't go to where you want. They should not be penalized right away. However, if they turn down a second offer within X number of panels, they should be barred from ERRing for a specific period of time. I trust the NCEPT team to come up with a fair time frame if they pursue this
5) Mandate a certain amount of time as CPC at your CURRENT facility before bidding out again. This is not fair to those who have been trying to leave for years, only to have the guy that checked out 4 months ago leave because he chased the list.
6) If possible, place more NATCA officials on the NCEPT. From memory, I think there are 13 people on the NCEPT team. NATCA has 2 seats among these 13. We are grossly under-represented.
7) I feel the NCEPT process shouldn't end until all members have accepted or declined their offer. If one person gets selected for ABC tower and turns it down, current practice dictates that that is the end until the next panel. If someone turns down their offer to a facility, the receiving facility still has a vacancy that needs to be filled. It should be offered to the next person at the next facility that can lose a body. This might also be a way to open the door to discussing point #3 above, and a good way to discourage point #4.
8 ) When crunching the numbers for the Centers and large TRACONs, I feel NCEPT should break those down further and look at staffing for the individual areas as well. Some areas are better staffed than others, and those controllers that are in those better staffed areas are suffering because the numbers for the facility as a whole will not allow them to move on.
In my opinion, if all facilities throughout the NAS were 90% staffed, NCEPT would be a great way to facilitate movement. However, the reality is we are in a critical staffing situation and the Agency has thus far, not been interested in boosting our numbers. I have always been one to try to come up with solutions rather than simply bitch about problems with a current process and I hope that you will at least consider my proposals. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
In solidarity,
Good morning brothers
As I'm sure you are aware, NCEPT is a very unpopular process among much of the membership. I think a lot of that stems from the way in which it was implemented. I think a lot of members feel that it was poorly thought out, rushed, and there was no effort on the part of NATCA leadership to get feedback regarding any proposed changes. We were simply told that "changes to the ERR process were coming", but there was no further communication beyond that. As a former FacRep, I understand that there are many things you cannot immediately bring to the membership because in doing so, it would compromise the negotiation process. However, this is one thing that I feel should have been brought to the members to solicit ideas and constructive feedback. As a result, our brothers and sisters are at each other's throats in an attempt to get out of their current facility and move up in their career. The numbers I have seen in terms of transfers attaining CPC status at their new facilities are abysmal, and on top of that, the NCEPT process has encouraged the membership to bid management positions because it is the only way to get out.
I say all that to suggest proposed changes to the NCEPT process (many of these are concerns I have been hearing through the grapevine, but I am only speaking on behalf of myself).
1) Implement a level cap throughout the process. I propose 4 levels. You have many CPC-ITs transferring from Level 4s to Level 12s and washing out since they don't have the background to work busier, more structured traffic. They are simply chasing the list. In this manner, a level 4 controller can go up to a mid-level 8, cut their teeth there, and from there move up to a 12. I feel like this will increase training success rates.
2) Remove trainees (Devs and CPC-ITs) from the PPT. Yes, it may look great on paper and provide more opportunities for CPCs to move on, but by factoring trainees into the equation, it provides a skewed picture of the actual staffing situation. CPCs should be the only one's displayed on the PPT (I say this as a CPC-IT myself).
3) Provide more flexibility with Cat 1 and Cat 2 release dates. At first, I thought one good thing that came from implementing NCEPT was that 2+ year release dates were all but eliminated. When I reported to my new facility, I discovered that that is not always a good thing. Right now, my facility has almost as many trainees as we do CPCs. Many of us reported here around the same time. This created a training backlog that could have been alleviated if the receiving ATM could have more flexibility in when trainees report. This way, those already there can get more time to certify so the new batch of trainees can actually get some quality training because there is a much smaller backlog.
4) Impose a penalty for habitual offer denials. There are some controllers who have no real intention of actually leaving their facility, they simply don't want others to leave either so they are extended an offer and they continuously turn it down. I propose that a member can turn down one offer without penalty. I get it. Sometimes stuff happens and your life plans change and you can't go to where you want. They should not be penalized right away. However, if they turn down a second offer within X number of panels, they should be barred from ERRing for a specific period of time. I trust the NCEPT team to come up with a fair time frame if they pursue this
5) Mandate a certain amount of time as CPC at your CURRENT facility before bidding out again. This is not fair to those who have been trying to leave for years, only to have the guy that checked out 4 months ago leave because he chased the list.
6) If possible, place more NATCA officials on the NCEPT. From memory, I think there are 13 people on the NCEPT team. NATCA has 2 seats among these 13. We are grossly under-represented.
7) I feel the NCEPT process shouldn't end until all members have accepted or declined their offer. If one person gets selected for ABC tower and turns it down, current practice dictates that that is the end until the next panel. If someone turns down their offer to a facility, the receiving facility still has a vacancy that needs to be filled. It should be offered to the next person at the next facility that can lose a body. This might also be a way to open the door to discussing point #3 above, and a good way to discourage point #4.
8 ) When crunching the numbers for the Centers and large TRACONs, I feel NCEPT should break those down further and look at staffing for the individual areas as well. Some areas are better staffed than others, and those controllers that are in those better staffed areas are suffering because the numbers for the facility as a whole will not allow them to move on.
In my opinion, if all facilities throughout the NAS were 90% staffed, NCEPT would be a great way to facilitate movement. However, the reality is we are in a critical staffing situation and the Agency has thus far, not been interested in boosting our numbers. I have always been one to try to come up with solutions rather than simply bitch about problems with a current process and I hope that you will at least consider my proposals. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
In solidarity,
FightingIrish2012
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 1,869
I love the passion, but remember a couple things. First, people have tried things like this before and have just been absolutely smacked down and destroyed by their Fac Rep and/or personally by the RVP (that’s kind of how this website started).
Second, while most people agree changes must be made, lots of people have their own ideas on how to do it. A lot of people hate the idea of level jump caps for example as a true superstar controller ready for anything might have been placed at their level five due to the hiring process, not any fault of their own. A better idea might be to word it insist that the RVP team open up true open dialog with discussions and ideas on how to change things.
Then instead of bullet point change requests, write bullet point examples of specifically how people are getting screwed (which everyone already knows, but it will reiterate the points).
- Messages
- 996
I cannot say to not send an email to whoever, in hopes to bring attention to the ERR transfer process. But I can almost guarantee that it will fall upon deaf ears (or blind eyes in this case).
Emails have been sent out to as high as Trish and Paul, of which the “blame game” ensued.
Emails have been sent out to as high as Trish and Paul, of which the “blame game” ensued.
They don't do any better in the en route environment. They take a long time. I get that...all of us that went straight to centers started from nothing as well. The issue is that CPC-IT status. It's great that you were a CPC at whatever Level 5 tower but it means absolutely nothing and you're not any better than the academy grad.
Robert_Boucher
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 851
I can agree to some sort of cap but not an across the board cap. I can only speak from a tower only perspective but it's ridiculous to say I'm not as capable as a 12 tracon or center CPC to work at a ATL, DFW, or ORD. Sure some folks are chasing the money but some folks legit want to get back home.
Whats the issue with a CPC from a tower going to a center and being a "CPC-IT?" Thats exactly what they are, a CPC in training. I don't understand how thats even worth mentioning
Cmsgthokage
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 686
Yeah, they better go back to fucking AG pay when they walk into my Center. /s
CaptainObvious
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,138
Funny how this attitude exists only in exclusively enroute folks
didnt they just consolidate a bunch into AZO? Likely all the facilities numbers combined until they can reevaluate
P
PushingTin
Guest
The leader of the NCEPT became RVP by pitting Boston Center against all the towers and tracons in that region. Seems to be spreading? NCEPT creating a civil war. Bad!
Ya, they did. It just seems funny that they wouldn’t wait to come out with these numbers until they are accurate. If another NCEPT panel happens before they do, AZO moves up on the priority list AGAIN needing a ridiculous amount of people. Publish numbers when they are correct or don’t publish them at all. This goes for every facility ?
On another note... I didn’t see any changes to the meat and bones of that May 2019 SOP.... was it just sent out to feed us “something” for the time being, haha.
They are CPC-IT's. The issue is when you think that being a CPC at a tower has anything to do with en route. No one suggests you go to AG pay or anything like that. The problem is the attitude...the attitude that somehow your tower experience is relevant. I remember one that constantly talked about how they did things in the tower. No one gives a shit how you did it in the tower. Would you give a shit if I walked into a tower and said, "Well, this is how we did at the center!" It doesn't matter.
The most successful transfers are the ones that get there and realize that it's a completely different type of environment and they are going to have to learn just about everything over again.
