Can't have a deal: What do you think?

atc1982 Newcomer

So after 28 years of control at ZNY Quality assurance tells me at a crew brief that you can only have a CAT 1 deal charged to you personally. Has to be less than 65% of either the lateral (5 miles) or vertical minima (1000ft) before it is charged to you. Anything less than that is still charged to the facility but not to the controller and you do not have to participate in the investigation. A little bit more lenient than the old PE (Proximity Event) category. I think we are headed for a collision. What do you think ? Roddy and Archie in particular, I value your opinions but anyone ?

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

Are you guys using ATSAP yet?

If so, then I think what QA is telling you is accurate. Cat B-PE are atsap items. Cat A is an atsap item also, but it doesn't just get swept like the others do.

The ATSAP program was created to change the culture of the agency to one of learning from mistakes instead of passing blame. Is that a good idea...sure. Is it 100% a good idea...no. Here's why I think that:

The experience level in the agency is really low right now. There are situations that could start popping up because of inexperience, low-manning, long hours, etc. Is it to say that the agency was safer before and now it's dangerous. I don't think so. I just think the potential is greater now than it was say 5 years ago for a rash of NMAC. In order to protect itself from public outcry because of dangerous situations in the NAS the agency has created the ATSAP program. That is just my personal opinion of why the ATSAP program was created. I could be waaaaay off.

PE's are fairly new too. I didn't understand why it was created. It seems to me that it was just a way to allow controllers involved in an OE/OD to get back on the boards quicker...because of manning issues the agency needed this. They couldn't short a shift because they had 2 FPL's grounded by a deal. So, instead they created the PE (90% separation, if i remember correctly). Don't get me wrong, the PE category helps controllers out. But, really...does it. PE's still go in your records. It is just vague and disappears quicker. But your not going to be getting the SCI with a PE, so I don't see how it really helps you. Any thoughts??

Guess the PE discussion is moot now that the SCI is going away and the ATSAP program is here. Bottom line...I'm thankful for the ATSAP program. I know at some point I will need to use it. I'm just a little skeptical at the reason for the creation of it. Seems suspect to me that it coincides with the amount of inexperience we have on the boards these days.

DASAUTO Banned

This kind of stuff gets me fired up! So, I would like to apologize in advance for any spelling errors in my typing rage.

More money, less responsibility, less accountability! WOW! The thought that this is good for controllers is absurd. It will catch up, sooner or later (hopefully not because of a collision). The FAA's approach to higher volume, high attrition/retirement rates, and less experience will certainly lead to serious safety of flight issues.

While we may not necessarily be "white collar," we are paid very high wages to perform a very precise job. Well, im not paid a high wage yet (still in uniform for another 6 months). I am a pretty jovial person, until I'm plugged in and talking to aircraft.

Really, the FAA just lowered separation standards without any merited research/safety guidelines! You think not? Well, if u had a bust before, there was a price to pay. Many dont want to break the rules, simply because they dont want to put up with the BS from management. Now, the FAA just lifted any recourse against a controller for violating separation standards.

With a lot of the inexperience entering the FAA (and young/immature), their attitude will not be conducive to a safe flying environment. Not ALL the new controllers have/will have this attitude (before i get flamed for saying that), but this new rule certainly presents less accountability for those that do.

Roddy_Piper Resident Knucklehead Vegas baby

@DASAUTO

exactly...well put.

atctimmy Newcomer

I don't trust the FAA enough to trust ATSAP.

atc1982 Newcomer

Yes we use ATSAP and I feel the same way you guys do. At my facility we have discussed what the agency is going to do when limited rated controllers already have 2 or 3 deals. And sure enough it is happening. The whole training culture has changed..very few people fail at the facility. Everyone gets 180 hours, then automatically 20% more; and if that is not enough a review board that grants them more hours plus Article 67 time. This happens because the supes appear to be incapable of doing skills checks on time and following the training protocol. Have we made some fine controllers...you bet. But none of them needed to go through or were the result of the above process; they were "ready" at 100 hours. The people who need the review board very rarely become good controlers. They become traffic dodgers because they know the have very limited skill.
We old timers grew with the traffic. The new hires get thrown into a facility that is much busier than when I hired on; even with the traffic count drop due to the econmy....so maybe I should be easier on them.
Still I wonder if people will become more cavalier in their operation thinking that they won't get charged with a deal as long as they have 65% or more of the standard. I don't think people will start shooting for 4 miles instead of 5; but the fact that the controller isn't needed to find out what happened worries me. Seems as if the FAA wants to sweep these under the rug which also helps them hide some of their deficiencies; like poorly designed sectors or routes. I am glad TCAS is in most aircraft.

towerflower Junior Member Palm Coast, FL

My feelings with it, is that is always has been a numbers game with the FAA. When they created the PEs, staffing was starting to go lower. When the union would start to complain the FAA countered with "There isn't a problem, OEs have actually gone down and not up." With a wave of a wand they created the image that safety had improved by only reporting the more serious errors and reclassified the lesser ones.

It will most likely come down to how it is reported. Will the FAA only release the numbers where the controller is tagged with the error and not the ones tagged to the facility or will they put both together in the same bag. If history repeats itself they will only release the numbers tagged through a controller and then proudly state that "Safety is getting better." "We put the right people in the right place at the right time." "The system is better now than it has been in the previous years."

It's all just a number shell game.

ZBWer Rookie

Tower, you have hit the nail on the head. They changed the definition of deals a couple of years ago so they could tell Congress that OEs were down. This was criminal, in my opinion. As far as ATSAP goes, ZBW is an ATSAP facility. But I am extremely sceptical of the process. The entire program is being run by a private contractor. Private contractors are not subject to FOIA requests. This means less transparency and less focus on the FAA by watchdogs in the media and Congress. I want NATCA to oppose ATSAP. And I am more than willing to take the hit if I have a deal. For crying out loud, what is wrong with taking responsibilty for one's actions? It's what we demand from the Agency, so we should be willing to accept it ourselves. Rant over.

NATCA69 Newcomer USA

The database was developed and is maintained/run with the data being retained by a contractor to shield it from FOIA.

SnowAviation Senior Member Escondido, CA

Would you be more likely, or less likely, to speed if you KNEW
that if caught, the officer would only give you a warning or
ignore you entirely?