What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate...
The NATCA rants continue in their most recent war of words with
the FAA -- seemingly as they continue to negotiate a difficult
labor contract via the media as well as the negotiating table. The
latest volley suggests that the FAA is sacrificing safety in an
attempt to economize operations, (via the statement below),
but the FAA says otherwise (in the statement that follows
NATCA's)...
NATCA Statement: FAA Jeopardizes Safety With New
“Fix-On-Fail” Policy For Equipment
The Federal Aviation
Administration has fundamentally changed the way air traffic
control equipment is maintained and now plans to wait until the
equipment actually fails before conducting vital work. By waiting
until a potentially dangerous failure occurs, this new agency
policy directly threatens passenger safety and is the latest
example of the agency’s mismanagement, which is reducing the
reliability and integrity of the system by cutting corners.
The FAA formally adopted a document entitled, “Concept of
Operations (ConOps),” which specifies fundamental changes in
how maintenance of National Airspace System electronics equipment
will be performed. The new concept, termed “Reliability
Centered Maintenance (RCM)” will be put in place over the
next couple of years.
“While the FAA refers to it as an
‘event-based’ concept, it can best be described as a
‘fix-on-fail’ concept,” said National Air Traffic
Controllers Association President John Carr (pictured below).
“What they’re doing is switching from preventative
maintenance to a scheme where equipment will be used until it fails
and then fixed. This is like buying a new car, neglecting to do any
oil changes and then waiting until the engine seizes to take it to
a mechanic. This is unsafe, unwise and will cost the agency more
money in the long run than it will save.”
The preventative maintenance procedure has been used since the
inception of the FAA and required a technician to perform regular
checks of equipment to certify that it was safely operating. The
new scheme specifies a change in procedure where equipment will be
utilized until it fails; only then requiring a technician to fix
it.
The ConOps scheme is based on the prior Corporate Maintenance
Philosophy that was used in Alaska and was a recognized failure
because of the increased duration of outages when equipment did
fail due to multiple component failures within the unit.
“The whole purpose cited by the agency in the adoption of
the new ConOps is to save money on maintenance. However, quite
apart from serious safety concerns, there is the potential that
equipment failures will be so extensive that the only viable repair
will be to replace the entire equipment sets. Does this really save
the agency any money?” said Jim D’Agati, a NATCA vice
president who represents FAA engineers. “The costs associated
with restoration of facilities dramatically increased after the
initial period when this scheme was utilized in Alaska. Now the
agency wants to expand this scheme to the rest of the
country.”
Interestingly, the
“run to fail” concept has been rejected when applied to
aircraft as regulated by the FAA. Air frame manufacturers and air
carrier maintenance companies are required to adhere to time
intervals for checking avionics that are used by pilots. While
pilot-used equipment undergoes a certification process based on
recognized time intervals, the ground-based companion systems are
being proposed to be maintained in an entirely different concept.
The equipment being used as the “eyes and ears” of
controllers charged with maintaining aircraft separation will be
under a subjective determination on what equipment will be placed
under the new maintenance scheme. There is a potential that over
three-quarters of the ground-based equipment being utilized by
pilots and controllers will be placed under this new scheme.
The ConOps scheme will also have a devastating change on the
socio-economic impact to airports at smaller to medium-sized
communities that have air service because of the reduced emphasis
on restoration of equipment. The document specifies that the agency
will no longer provide prompt restoration of outlying facilities
beyond locations where multiple air carriers operate at the major
airports. Communities without major air carrier services will be
asked to contribute to the costs associated with maintaining
equipment if they desire prompt restoration of services being
provided by the FAA. For many small communities, this will have an
impact in that they will not be able to afford to maintain the
services that they now enjoy.
Both NATCA and the Professional Airways System Specialists
objected to the concept of this new maintenance scheme as being
unsafe to the flying public. Under the agency’s new plan,
equipment will only be checked when a system has failed and is
being returned to service. Such a severe reduction of periodic
maintenance and certification will dramatically affect the aviation
industry by increasing the number of unplanned outages and length
of recovery time when equipment fails, and the overall safety of
the NAS. Both unions’ concerns went unheeded and the FAA is
proceeding with the new scheme.
Frequent air travelers or concerned citizens can get more
information on FAA adoption of the new maintenance scheme, or lodge
a complaint by calling 1-800-FLY US SAFE or visit www.flyussafe.com.
The FAA Response
The FAA's Greg Martin,
Assistant Administrator for Communications, has responded to
NATCA's latest charges, succinctly...
NATCA’s statement is patently false. The FAA has not
fundamentally changed the way air traffic control equipment is
maintained – and, specifically, that the agency waits until
equipment fails before conducting vital work.
We keep meticulous records and data on air traffic control
equipment and monitor those records and data to allow us to provide
the appropriate level of maintenance for each ATC system. This
approach to maintenance is an industry standard used by leading
corporations worldwide. It is nothing new.
FAA and orther organizations have come to know that as
technology improves, new systems often require less maintenance
than older systems; and, as with other technoloigies and
industries, sometimes it turns out to be less expensive to replace
equipment than to repair it.