ATS IMPACTS to Reduction in OTCWF
1. Training – We are currently only using 1/3rd of our simulation capability which has the potential to improve the throughput and efficiency as measured by time to certify and CPC certifications by as much as 40%.
o ATCOTS - cuts have really put a big burden on most facilities with limited staffing at the same time we are going to ramp up hiring and they have insufficient SP to begin with.
§ The result of shifting the work back to the ops and mgmt at a time when we are cutting admin and SPs.
§ HQ continues to increase training requirements.
§ Quality of administration of the .4 affected (less robust in classroom and classroom)/Materials are out of date.
§ Training personnel are ill prepared.
§ Some uncertainty and less predictability.
§ Training requirements are increasing with the newest hiring wave.
§ Backlog in certification training is occurring.
§ Unknown impact to throughput.
o TSS -
§ No staffing or travel funding (to build and use) plans – no resource plan.
§ Cannot get program online due to inability to build the basic cert scenarios (200 to 400 hours per facility).
§ Complex system takes a lot of training to administer and cannot keep sufficient skills and abilities with temp support.
§ Not getting the return on the investment (20 to 40% reduction in cert time is possible).
§ Less than a third of our facilities use it.
§ Unused capability because of staffing and funding cuts at a time when we really need a way to reduce (by increasing the use of the TSS) all cert time we can. This will assist in recovering some of the lost hiring opportunities occurring in 2012 and 2013.
§ Increased OT costs.
o TTL/SGET/Terminal Radar Lab
§ Not enough staffing to have optimal use of the system (run 3 but can do 8 positions)
§ Unused capability because of staffing and funding cuts at a time when we really need a way to recover all cert items we can.
§ Not getting the return on the investment (20 to 40% reduction in cert time is possible).
§ Not staffed to support the new and ongoing requirements to maintain the scenarios that were not envisioned to be permanent past ERAM implementation.
§ Licensing of work stations is not sufficient.
§ Inconsistency between facility abilities to maintain and create scenarios (2 days to develop each problem (most facilities have over a 1000 scenarios) due to varying level of skills and abilities currently existing.
§ Having to pull 2 to 4 controllers off the floor to catchup and maintain scenarios.
§ Lab time is shared and difficult to schedule effectively – Backlogs occurring, increased OT costs.
2. Performance Management- The additional cuts preclude performance management that goes beyond the bare requirements, stalemating our efforts to arrest and contain “operational drift”.
o Just meeting the minimums- just maintaining (on-the-spot corrections and coaching only) not really improving skills to the higher levels due to bandwidth problems.
o Not able to coach to the level needed based on the lack of experienced folks.
o Removes the opportunity to invest in our FLMs properly to properly coach emphasize proper performance mgmt.
o OSA’s will become box checking exercises.
o Insufficient operational drift containmen.t
o Drifting away from proper documentation needs.
o Lack of aggressive QC.
3. Collaboration- Additional management and staff support participants for collaborative work groups will not be available causing an unbalanced mix of field Union representation and HQ management. Many management representatives currently participating in workgroups will need to be recalled further exacerbating the issue. e.g., Management Regional Coordinators, ERAM/TAMR POC’s, 7110.65 workgroup, etc….
o Difficult to really support and causing multiple schedule adjustments, increased use of OT.
o Unbalanced as current management resources are not able to equally participate or at least be on par with Union.
o Lots of admin involvement in the travel arrangements.
o Limited ability to do local CWG efforts due to staffing being dedicated to national programs.
o National agreements are impacting field staffing without truly assessing the consequences on the fields.
4. Staff work inadequate/poor quality-Deadlines will not be met and staff work quality will drop below a satisfactory level.
o Because of the limited staffing, too much to do with very little training resulting in being late or sacrifice quality to meet timelines. i.e. DCP reviews and comments.
o Little remaining time to take care of local facility needs remain after accommodating all of the higher level agency demands.
o Difficult to really come up with service and efficiencies improvements.
o Lots of confusion to due to applying unsigned directions or DRAFT orders/notices.
o More noticeable in smaller terminal districts as there may not be a large number of support folks to accomplish the work currently being able to be accomplish at Districts that have a major facilities with support folks.
5. Over worked ATMs due to limited support- Overtime and credit hours costs will increase. Most work will be reactive resulting in limited if any investment in continuous improvement and thereby inviting additional operational and administrative risk.
o Smaller terminal facilities current demands (lack of lower level help) leave little room to handle pop-up initiatives or personnel issues without a much increased use of credit hours.
6. Limited development opportunities- Additional loss of Quantity and Quality of “bench strength” will continue to erode the organization’s “Leadership Acumen”.
o Fewer positions to leverage.
o Few folks are being developed with is causing big gaps in experience with regard to preparing for the next level.
o Inability to support training courses and details for individual development.
o Limited ability to take care of the “basic ATC needs” with the facility (crew briefs, airspace changes etc.).
7. New system development and deployment – New capabilities and efficiencies will not be supported. Program deployment will take longer and cost more.
o Quality and implementation issues; steep learning curve.
o Reduction in redundancy; Reacting – all behind the power curve; rework (repeating briefings); adding risk into system (GENOTS getting changed 3 times); Not ever getting our return on investment as we cannot optimize the systems purpose.
8. Field personnel - Impacts that are not quantifiable.
o Increasing dependency on the field to fix broken national products- Last line of defense.
o Overworked, morale dropping.
o Frustration.
o Lack of confidence in HQ/SC products.
o Ability to react and support initiatives in field is reduced due to the staffing reductions ie:
§ Lack of national training on national products/projects.
§ Lack of national standards and consistent use and application of programs like TBFM cause each facility to create their own.
o We are maxed out now and something must be traded off (not doing 2 hours in the Ops FAM time for mgmt consistently).
o National requirements seem to trump local facility ability specific training and initiatives (and associated needed coaching) like basic recurring training issues (speed control; recovery techniques; new internal procedures).
o A48 demands on facility staffing further affecting our abilities to fully perform core duties.
o Are we really addressing system issues if HQ is so involved on the tactical?
o During times of limited staffing, it is critical that we have complete, accurate, timely (time to complete action or perform adequate reviews and training) and with minimum rework from HQ and SC products. i.e. 7110 revision posted on last day with no briefing materials; NAGE CBA roll out; SVFR; notice. This increases the workload at a time when we have less capability.
o Cannot have the same org configuration and processes (designed decades ago; pre-instant information age; direction was by memo; HQ did not get into all of the field decisions) and deal with the constant reaction to the latest information needs.
o Workload and limited resources forces us to live in the moment vs. planning.
4