Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Plans To Separate Radar-Tower Functions At MCO  
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3106 posts, RR: 10
Posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3933 times:

Against the wishes of the U.S. Congress the FAA has decided to seperate the radar and tower functions at MCO starting January 4, 2009. According to the writeup and this is their text:

Courtesy: US Newswire

"the tower operation becomes staffed with less experienced controllers, the radar operation becomes unable to staff without forced overtime for fatigued controllers and overall training programs are degraded to a level that does not conform to DOT Inspector General recommendations."

FAA Ignores Congress, Plans to Needlessly Threaten Orlando Air Safety Starting Sunday

2 Pages

http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/o...Air-Safety-Starting-Sunday/1$24961

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope there are some ATC guys and gals on A-Net that read this and then can explain what in the world is going on here. How many regular members of this forum even knew about this?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3912 times:

Basically the FAA has been trying to split facilities to save money. Pay is based upon facility operations and airspace complexity. Most airports used to be what is called "up-down" facilities where controllers worked "up" in the tower and "down" in TRACON. This increased facility complexity and raised controller pay. IAH, ATL, PDX, and many other facilities used to use this model. However, now the FAA has realized it can split the two into two separate facilities and cut the pay band for one or both.

For example, this just happened at MIA. MIA used to be a level 12 up-down facility (10 is the highest). Now, MIA is split with the tower being a level 11 or 10 (can't remember) and the TRACON is still a 12. This model is spreading and will probably affect TPA, JAX, CLT, RDU, IND a few others in the near future.

Some examples of when this made a lot of sense are in ATL, LAX, and DC area where a few TRACONs were combined into one larger facility to improve efficiency. Unfortunately, the way it is being done at places like MCO and TPA reduces the number of controllers certified on all positions without hiring additional controllers the cover both facilities. The results in a lot of overtime and controller fatigue.

This will only get worse, in my opinion, since the FAA is just now starting to correct the horrid level of staffing that it currently has. And as more rules are changed that don't favor controllers, the sooner people retire and create more under-staffing. It's really a quite vicious circle.

... At least this is my take on the whole thing........ I also think that article blows it a bit out of proportion.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

The cost issue aside, this is yet another huge mistake! Why, because a tower controller never learns what the TRACON controller deals with and vice/versa. And yes, I understand the fact of proficiency issue as well within the respective operation, something with creative scheduling can be dealt with simply.

The IAH Tower and Houston TRACON split probably occurred in the early 90's, something like 1992 when the last up/down controller was no longer current in the tower. Nothing against either facility operation, but there is the disconnect between the different options.

There are places where the facilities are not located near each other, like ATL Tower and ATL TRACON.....these make sense to have the split facility ops. However, when they are located on the same airport. IMO cost should not be the ruling factor, efficiency and knowledge of the total operation should come first.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineWagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 516 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We dodged the bullet on this one here at PHL, as the FAA was planning to split PHL, MEM, MCO and soomeone else all at the same time. Luckily our NATCA chapter fought pretty hard and instead we're being sectorized in to an Area A and Area B. Area A being the Tower and the Arrival Sectors in the TRACON. Area B is the entire TRACON but no tower. We keep Level 12 pay for everyone, as they were planning on making the Tower a Level 10 and possibly making the TRACON an 11. Only one other new hire developmental behind me got Area A last year. Everyone else coming in, including some transfers from other facilities, are all Area B.

Us Area A guys at PHL won't get to experience the fun that is our Departure Sectors, but at least we'll be sitting next to them watching as they vector like mad to get departures over one fix 30 MIT, while at the same time working low level props up to EWR and LGA, and work aicraft in/out of some satellite airports.

Oddly enough, I'm heading out to OKC tomorrow for my RTF class.



I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3593 times:

It's all part of FAA's "run like a business" scheme that puts the bottom line in front of safety.

Funny, coming from the agency that won't let the airlines work that way.

The FAA needs to be destroyed. It's functions parted out to other groups with some working knowledge, or stake in mission success. ATC to DoD or the USAF. Flight safety and standards to NASA. Just suggestions.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3583 times:



Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 4):
ATC to DoD or the USAF. Flight safety and standards to NASA. Just suggestions.

If ATC went to the Air Force, wouldn't the zoomies want to split all the up/downs?  stirthepot 



"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3555 times:



Quoting Wagz (Reply 3):
Flight safety and standards

That entire flight standards process really needs an overhaul......start there without a doubt.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineJgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3542 times:



Quoting P3Orion (Reply 5):
If ATC went to the Air Force, wouldn't the zoomies want to split all the up/downs?

It would stay the same until some new Captain trying to make Major comes up with the great idea of splitting the facilities so that each controller is more specialized. Then that guy leaves and some new officer trying to good impression comes in he'll come up with the "new" idea of combining the staffing so that each controller has a better understanding of what the others are going though.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3467 times:



Quoting Jgarrido (Reply 7):
It would stay the same until some new Captain trying to make Major comes up with the great idea of splitting the facilities so that each controller is more specialized. Then that guy leaves and some new officer trying to good impression comes in he'll come up with the "new" idea of combining the staffing so that each controller has a better understanding of what the others are going though.



Quoting P3Orion (Reply 5):
If ATC went to the Air Force, wouldn't the zoomies want to split all the up/downs?   

Huuummm. Yeah. Scratch the USAF idea.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FAA Plans To Separate Radar-Tower Functions At MCO
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Was There A Problem At MCO Last Night? posted Sun Apr 6 2008 01:04:26 by Readytotaxi
Towing Aircraft To Stands At ATL posted Wed Oct 29 2008 19:23:55 by Brenintw
New Infrastructure On Approach To RWY16 At YMML? posted Wed Oct 15 2008 23:49:30 by B727-200
Turning Pax Away At The Gate Due To Illness posted Thu Jun 12 2008 01:39:38 by Kris
New FAA Flight Plans Next Month? posted Thu May 22 2008 15:38:53 by Pianos101
US FAA To Impose Special Conditions On Boeing 787 posted Thu Feb 28 2008 01:36:31 by Parapente
Why F/A-18 Was Design To Fly At Mach 2? posted Mon Jan 28 2008 02:19:38 by 747400sp
Americans Moves All Flights To T9 At JFK posted Tue Jun 5 2007 05:24:00 by Yankees
Runway 13R/31L At JFK Widened To 60 M Yet? posted Sun Mar 18 2007 17:41:18 by RJpieces
US FAA To End Etops Restrictions posted Wed Jan 10 2007 00:22:21 by DEVILFISH

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format