The new ATC technology is coming. The history of people who resist technological change supported by industry is a history of failure. The decision has already been made to fund and implement NextGen. It’s going to happen. The systems already exist, they’re just not installed yet.
We don’t have to be passive victims. We can influence how this happens.
The operational benefit from Virtual Towers is the way the sensor system supports low-visibility operations. There’s no reason the technology isn’t installed in our existing towers. It’s just easier for Industry to cost-justify the new investment by saying it’s going to reduce the need for skilled employees.
NextGen navigation is coming. They’re selling it as a complete replacement for the existing radar-based system because they can easily cost-justify it that way. There’s no reason the technology isn’t installed within the current system.
The concept of radar is going to go away, and it’s going to be replaced by “sensors”. Our position information will be driven by multiple sources, including radar, ADS-B, wide-area multilateration and GPS coordinates over datalink.
The concept of VHF radio-based communication is going to go away, and it will be replaced by datalink. That’s OK.
The controller workforce is a value-added asset. That means we’re worth more than we cost, right now, today. We don’t do a very good job of advertising that to our taxpayers and politicians. Every day, taken as a group, controllers make decisions that save more money than the payroll costs. We need to announce that, repeatedly.
There’s a lot of good news that we’re not presenting to the public. In general, flight assists aren’t documented, and they’re certainly not announced to the public. Some may say, “that’s our job, that’s what we do everyday”. In response, I say we need to tell our story or we’re going to lose.
The locally-resident Terminal controller workforce, living in the areas they’re responsible for, have a tremendous amount of local knowledge that remote workers would never attain. We need to announce that, repeatedly. When the reporter writes about a controller’s flight assist it would be wonderful if the article included, “The controller also said that there’s no way she could have accomplished this life-saving operation if she’d been in one of the proposed remote virtual towers“.
When industry runs a test that might end up announcing “controllers prefer working in the virtual tower” (see previous links), we need to make sure that NATCA controllers are participating in those tests. LockMart, Boeing ATC, Volpe, and MITRE all depend on the good will of our employer. We can make sure that NATCA controllers are used to validate these systems.
We’ve got to embrace the new technology while making sure that the ATC system returns the best possible results for the American flying public – and that means using technology to augment, rather than replace, skilled controllers familiar with the local area.
We need to study the Flight Plan. We need to find out what systems and proposals are out there. We need to have a role in their development. We should help vendors sell systems that improve the operation while respecting the human contribution.
Our manner of thinking needs to get bigger, in that we need to start thinking about our Competitors. LockMart, Boeing, Raytheon, Midwest, RVA, Serco – they are not our friends. They are our competitors. They intend to make their fortunes by robbing this profession.
Everytime we see a contractor in a process, we need to look at them as a foot soldier for our Competition. We need to take back the staff functions, restore our own capabilities, and keep our competitors from placing contractors into controller jobs.
And let me say this hard thing: the contractor controllers at Midwest, RVA, or Serco facilities are not my allies. Retired controllers in contractor jobs are not my allies. They’re the foot soldiers of the Corporations who want to take my job.
We need to do more than focus on our relationship with the Administration and Congress. We need to look outside into the marketplace, where our competitive threats are. We need to spend money on this. It’s going to take an effort a lot like the PAC fund.
As much as the CTI initiative is pumping sunshine into college kids so they can join the profession, nobody is looking out for the long-range future of the profession. When I look around, only NATCA can possibly do that.
Here are the questions we need to present to the public:
Our competitors are out there in front of us. They’ve been working on this for a few years while we’ve been internally focused. If we want to see the profession continue into the future, we need to engage the contest. We’re behind.
Thank you.
Essential Reading 2.0 to 3.0
No thank you, for shining a light on this subject, and more importantly, offering solutions.
Bravo !
Don Brown
Now you know where we were in flight service 10 yrs. ago.
This is where Flight Service was 10 yrs. ago. The profession is now ruined.
I’ve appreciated your cogent posts and it’s gotten me thinking a lot about where the profession is headed.
On FSS: assuming this post on stuckmic.com is correct, I could see SVT/SNT/ANT going the same direction. All it takes is a contractor condensing X number of facilities, realizing how quiet they all are between 9pm and 7am, reducing overnight staffing, realizing the savings and trying to pare down dayside as well.
A few more thoughts:
The technology exists for fully automated airline flights. We can control drones from 12 time zones away, and most of the time they fly right. As technology improves, the error/deviation rate will decline. But I don’t see any airline sacking their flight crews because passengers would feel so unsafe that they would stop flying that airline.
Flight crews are tangible. You hear their voices now and then as they make PA announcements, maybe you see them standing with the gate agent before the flight or you greet them as you get off the plane. Controllers are anonymous and their job, to the vast majority of the flying public, is mysterious and filled with code and jargon. Even if you listen to Ch. 9 on United, unless you’re also a pilot, it’s pretty hard to make sense of what’s going on.
A crucial part of advocating for a human-operated ATC system is going to require that controllers make themselves known to the flying public. Maybe it starts with NATCA-sponsored tables in airport terminals staffed by working controllers. During your lunch break, you take 15 minutes at the table and talk to passengers — explain what you do, tell them about the local procedures in a way that makes sense to them (e.g. why you’re only letting planes use one runway on a crappy wx day, and why their flight is delayed). Maybe NATCA can produce DVDs or iTunes downloads that explain the ATC side in an engaging, non-condescending way to the flying public.
Maybe there’s a way to open up towers to brief visits for people on long layovers on Saturday afternoons, or between pushes so that the average passenger can see what goes on in the tower cab and can begin to understand why controllers need to be *at the airport* to do it. Will it be a pain and incredibly annoying when you’re on position to have a vacationing family looking over your shoulder and pointing at strips? Absolutely. But if that’s the “cost” for preserving our profession and putting safety first, then sign me up.
People connect with people, not buzzwords and jargon. People also connect with catchy phrases, which is why a lot of people recognize the term “NextGen,” even if they can’t explain it that well. Likewise, controllers/NATCA need to adopt a similar term and equate it with us as working professionals providing a vital service. “Fly safe.” … “SafeFlight.”
That’s not unlike the occasional ads NATCA has run for years touting how controllers watch over you as you fly, except that I’m not sure those ads reached enough people. This is going to take a big (read: expensive) PR effort on the part of NATCA that will have to last for a lot longer than ads in a couple of magazines. And it shouldn’t be framed as a response/criticism/attack of NextGen, either, at least not at first. It must stand on its own. Once the flying public begins to recognize the importance of OTW controllers, then you can make a strong argument against SNT using the framework you’ve built up.
I’m not a controller, just a recreational pilot and member of the public. From that point of view, two comments.
1. “Will this be a government or a for-profit system?” This is a great question. Consider using the term “public benefit” instead of “government”. As in, “Will this system be for the public benefit or for profit?” The word “government” has negative connotations to some people. “Public benefit” sidesteps that, and sharpens the contrast with “profit”.
2. I think the idea of getting controllers visible to the flying public is wonderful. Tables in airports are a great idea. Also consider having a table in the airport’s observation deck, if it has one. Consider a booth at the local air show or airport open house.
Blue skies (and functioning telecoms)!
Natca and ATC blew it when they sat back on their fat arses and let Flight Service go through hell and down the tubes.
That was where the war was started, and Natca just stood there and offered 0 help and 0 lobbying assistance. Kate Breen at Naats did her best, but she was out of her league.
And now, Natca sees it coming. Natca has to emphasize that NextGen doesnt work, as FS21 never worked and was scrapped, brought back, and scrapped again. Flight scape is it now?
Eram and NextGen are failing miserably. Sell that.