|
|
Post by rich on Nov 5, 2015 17:17:27 GMT -5
Sent out by AJT-21 today. |
|
mwxm
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by mwxm on Nov 5, 2015 17:46:28 GMT -5
I work at one of the "57" sites. Our ATM received the same documents. The writing appears to be on the wall.
Also, as far as the safety panels go, he said they are mostly a formality. They have been trying to come up with ideas that might have a chance to prevent controllers from taking over - not enough staffing, etc - but doesn't think it will have any effect. It's all about money. (shocking)
|
|
|
|
Post by wxspecialist on Nov 5, 2015 18:12:42 GMT -5
Several weeks ago NATCA is crying to congress for a hearing about staff shortages and they still want to push this through. The controllers at my station are working 6 days a week. Were friendly with the controllers at our site and hope they make a stand for us.
Hopefully "potential transition" doesn't mean all 57 sites get the ax.
|
|
|
|
Post by rich on Nov 5, 2015 18:24:43 GMT -5
I work at one of the "57" sites. Our ATM received the same documents. The writing appears to be on the wall. Also, as far as the safety panels go, he said they are mostly a formality. They have been trying to come up with ideas that might have a chance to prevent controllers from taking over - not enough staffing, etc - but doesn't think it will have any effect. It's all about money. (shocking) According to an answer given in the commonly asked question doc all 57 sites are "adequately staffed to assume LAWRS duties with no degradation of service" |
|
|
|
Post by lostsheep on Nov 5, 2015 18:26:48 GMT -5
They actually wrote that there's no difference between a controller doing weather and a CWO!!!! WTF are they high and need a piss test!!!! Controllers have no idea how to sign on to ASOS let alone augmenting or editing for TS or a Sensor failure!!! Can't believe they put this crap out there for people to believe. After seeing all the crap that LAWRS sites put out in the obs, I can't believe the FAA can actually say that there controllers will do the same job as a CWO!!! Good luck on that FAA. It will only be a matter of time after the 57 sites go to LAWRS that a major crash will occur at one of those sites due to weather and all hell will break loose!!! Good luck to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by tornado on Nov 5, 2015 18:45:20 GMT -5
They actually wrote that there's no difference between a controller doing weather and a CWO!!!!
The next case I post in "the lightning project", will demonstrate that is not true. A LAWRS site and a CWO site, 6 miles apart, had very different reactions to
the same band of thunderstorms. The LAWRS site had more nearby lightning, more rain, and worse visibility than the CWO site; yet the LAWRS site didn't even report a thunderstorm! I have 4 cases ready to go, but have been posting in batches of 5 lately. I'm here monitoring the situation in Texas and Oklahoma to see if that 5th case presents itself... (late edit: 2 more cases have developed, both from another state)
I hope observers at the 57 sites are grabbing whatever documentation from these message boards, that they feel applies to their site. That's why we share so much data on here. Yes, there's the big picture; but hopefully some of this information will help to keep stations open. I mean, if I had a LAWRS site 6 miles up the road, that missed a thunderstorm I had reported; I'd be sharing the documentation with as many interested parties as I could find! According to an answer given in the commonly asked question doc all 57 sites are "adequately staffed to assume LAWRS duties with no degradation of service"
That's also demonstrably false! The AUTO thread has documented many cases of when ATC signs off ASOS during thunderstorms, while the control tower is open.
It happened this afternoon in St. Joseph, Missouri; and Tyler, Texas. That alone reduces the service level from C to D! So why do they do that? If they had adequate staffing, they could put one controller- even a developmental- to handle ASOS duty. |
|
|
|
Post by rich on Nov 5, 2015 18:58:03 GMT -5
We have a nearby LAWRS site. What we have noticed is that 9 hrs after it opens it goes AUTO until one of the controllers notices that they've been signed out of the ASOS. Usually takes them a few hours to realize it though. It happens in good weather and bad weather too.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowwx on Nov 5, 2015 21:46:55 GMT -5
All about money...however, but you watch within a year it will cost MORE to do this when NATCA demands a dedicated position to ASOS and at 2-3x the cost of keeping it the way it is...it will bloat out of control just like the TSA
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Nov 5, 2015 22:23:59 GMT -5
I see a problem with these documents already. Besides all of the the "no degradation" bullshit prior to it, the FAQ document's arguably biggest lie is:
What are the similarities between LAWRS controllers and CWO contractors?
1. LAWRS controllers and CWO contractors provide a Basic Weather Watch (FAA Order 7900.5C, paragraphs 3.2.e and 3.2.k)
The problem is, CWO's provide a Continuous Weather Watch because that is our job, not controlling aircraft while we perform the weather when we get a chance like ATC, which is only a Basic Weather Watch!
What fool wrote this thing?
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Nov 5, 2015 22:38:18 GMT -5
Not to mention that the second and third paragraphs about enhancing LAWRS requirements to meet current "A" and "B" Level requirements will not happen because LAWRS are considered "C" Level service. What kind of way is that to answer these 2 questions. Just tell it like it is and say, "No, we will not have LAWRS Observers provide the same backup and augmentation as CWOs because it's not required and you're screwed if your station gets demoted to LAWRS". This document just pisses me off from top to bottom and unless I missed something there's still no exact schedule of when these local SRM panels will occur. I guess it will be up to the site ATM to decide on a date after inviting who the higher ups at the FAA tell him to invite to these meetings?
skobie
|
|
sky
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by sky on Nov 6, 2015 0:13:29 GMT -5
Hello all..could someone please post a list of the 57 proposed sites in question of the transition, this is all so sad...
Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Nov 6, 2015 8:56:23 GMT -5
Hello all..could someone please post a list of the 57 proposed sites in question of the transition, this is all so sad... Thank you in advance. (2.16 MB) page 10-12 have the list of 57 potential sites |
|
|
|
Post by tornado on Nov 6, 2015 9:44:38 GMT -5
They will get around the "basic vs. continuous weather watch" issue, by citing paragraph 3.2.k. on page 14 from the 7900.5C:
|
|
|
|
Post by hokiefan on Nov 6, 2015 10:09:31 GMT -5
Please post if your site has received the SRMP notice. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Nov 6, 2015 10:22:18 GMT -5
They will get around the "basic vs. continuous weather watch" issue, by citing paragraph 3.2.k. on page 14 from the 7900.5C: So are the current CWOs supposed to be under a Basic Weather Watch as we are technically "FAA-contract"? As far as I know, I'm under a Continuous Weather Watch as I should be, so something doesn't make sense. skobie |
|
