STATEMENT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS THE HONORABLE MARY ROSE OAKAR CHAIRPERSON COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89-00066R000100060005-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 27
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 22, 2010
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: June 27, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
}JNAA7SD
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AIR TRAFFIC SPECIALISTS
SUITE 415, WHEATON PLAZA NORTH
WHEATON, MARYLAND 20902
Area Code 301
946-0882
STATEMENT
before the
SUBCO~;~?;IT'.l'EE UN COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
THE HONORP.BLE MARY ROSE DAKAR
CHAIRPERSON
COMMITTEE
ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ninety-t?Iinth Congress
BENEFITS FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIALISTS (STATION)
EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
by
BRUCE B. HENRY
PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
AIR TRAFFIC SPECIALISTS
June 27, 1985
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
Madam Chair and Distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I
am grateful that you have provided me with the opportunity to appear
before you and to express my thoughts and opinions relative to early
retirement benefits -for Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station).
I am accompanied by Mr. Edward L. Huie, our Director of Legislative
Affairs, and Mr. Edward J. Halo, an aviation consultant and an ex-
pert on the Air Traffic Control System. Mr. Malo will make a short
statement after I conclude.
These hearings are most timely since all issues relating to
Federal employee retirement are under consideration by this Congress.
We believe that the issue before you is one of air safety and fair-
ness.
The Flight Service System is an integral part of the Air Traf-
fic Control System and there are about 317 flight service stations
throughout the United States. The personnel who staff the Air
Traffic Control System are designated by the Office of Personnel
Management as Series 2152 and are called:
? Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station)
This category is the least understood of all the categories
because of the lack of term standardization and the widespread use
of colloquialisms. FAA, and others as well, confuse the issue by
referring to this category as Flight Service Specialists, Specialists,
Flight Service Station Specialists, Station Specialists, Station
Personnel, Station Controllers, Controllers and Specialists. It is
so confusing that uninformed persons sometimes infer that these
are the personnel who fuel and maintain aircraft. For NAATS,
this is an overwhelming educational burden. An example is
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
included as Attachment (1) hereto. (FAA news release dated
March 5, 1985--FAA 10-85).
The two other categories are:
. Air Traffic Control Specialists (Terminal)
. Air Traffic Control Specialists (Center)
This Association is designated by the Secretary of Labor
as the exclusive representative of all the bargaining unit
members who are Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station)
Series 2152.
Personnel in 'all three categories are frequently called
"Controllers" by FAA and others as well, and one might infer
that they actually control aircraft in the ordinary sense of
the word "control." Federal Aviation Administration Regulation
91.3(a) clearly states, "The pilot in command of an aircraft is
directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the
operation of that aircraft."
If responsibility for operation of the aircraft is vested
in the "pilot in command" as the FAA has prescribed, then
control and separation can only be exercised by the pilot and
not by an FAA employee located on the ground in some far away
place using a radarscope, an inexact instrument at best even
when operating at peak efficiency.
Additionally, we have all heard of radar "outages" in
recent years, an event upon which the news media thrives.
We often wonder how the media finds out about "outages" so
quickly. Of course, when there is an "outage" the FAA ground
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
personnel can provide no information to the pilot at all.
The Federal Aviation Administration has, therefore, wisely
placed all command, control and separation squarely on the
shoulders of the pilot because there is no other place where
this awesome responsibility can be lodged.
On such a basis we do not believe that responsibility
can be shared for the safety of that aircraft, and that
control can only be exercised in the cockpit.
We can provide no better example of this than the
near miss between two jumbo jet aircraft on March 31, 1985,
at Minneapolis, Minnesota, ~~ith a combined total of 500 people
aboard. While the National Transportation Safety Board has
not rendered its report, Chairman Burnett and other Safety
Board personnel have been widely quoted by the news media.
"Both crews were executing the air traffic control instruc-
tions they were provided, no question", according to Michael
O'Rourke, investigator in charge for the Safety Board.
However, one pilot in command disregarded the "controller
instructions" and acted on his own and within his authority
and responsibility. He avoided what could have been a dis-
aster reminiscent of the world's worst aviation disaster where
577 people were killed in Tenerife, Canary Islands, in 1977 in
a similar crossing situation.
This is not to say that the FAA employee on the ground
has no responsibility, for he does have the responsibility
for carrying out the assigned duties of that position
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
which are to provide information, make recommendations and
to warn the pilot of other objects in the area as seen on his
radarscope. He cannot in any way interfere with the preroga-
tives of command, which can be no less than absolute.
Nevertheless, we have heard in past hearings, and probably
in this one as well, the FAA witness state that station
personnel are not qualified for early retirement because they
do not control and separate aircraft. We hasten to add that
no FAA employee on the ground controls and separates aircraft
with?the exception of the operation of a drone aircraft (no
pilot) and in this case control is exercised from a ground
position or from another vehicle. An example of this was the
recent intentional crash of FAA aircraft in the desert for
reasons of research. In that specific case, FAA employees on
the ground did, in fact, exercise the prerogatives of command,
control and separation. This is the only example that has
come to our attention, where control and separation has been
experienced by FAA ground personnel.
In our view, commercial air carriers are not too anxious
for it to be well known that their pilots in command bear the
full responsibility for the aircraft. It is in their best
interest to dilute and confuse the issue when it comes to
public liability litigation and, if possible, involve the
government as much as possible in sharing damages which may
be awarded by the courts as the result of an air carrier
accident or .crash. This applies to the general aviation
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
community as well.
In FAA's recent report to the Congress entitled
"FY 1985-87 Planned Office and Facility Consolidations--To
Improve System Effectiveness and Efficiency" dated December 1,
1984, the functions and mission of the flight service stations
are set forth as follows:
"Flight Service Station (FSS). Flight service stations
offer a broad range of pre-flight and in-flight services
aimed at general aviation (or non-airline) pilots. These
services include conducting pre-flight weather briefings
for pilots and accepting and closing flight plans,
primarily through telephone and radio communications.
Additionally, FSS's provide enroute communications with
pilots flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), assist
pilots in distress, work with search and rescue units in
locating missing aircraft, assist lost aircraft and
aircraft in emergency situations, monitor radio navigation,
stations, relay air traffic control (ATC) clearances,
originate Notices to Airmen, broadcast aviation weather
and National Airspace System (NAS) information, receive
and process Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans,
and monitor radio air navigations facilities (NAVAIDS).
In addition, at selected locations, FSS's provide Enroute
Flight Advisory service (Flight Watch), take weather
observations, issue airport advisories, and advise
Customs and Immigration of transborder flights. The
FSS's also have communications equipment for relaying
information to air traffic towers and control centers and
for various emergency services. Flight service stations
are under the general direction of the regional Air
Traffic Divisions and Washington headquarters."
study:
. In the first sentence, the FAA attempts to
downgrade our service by eliminating scheduled
airline pilots as one of the users of flight
service information. While the service may be
aimed at general aviation pilots, the truth is
that scheduled carriers are very frequent
users of flight service products.
. The word "emergency" is used twice.
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
Other phrases:
. Assist pilots in distress.
. Work with search and rescue units in locating
missing aircraft.
. Assist lost aircraft and aircraft in emergency
situations.
. Advise Customs and Immigration of transborder
flights (includes drug and narcotics interdiction--
added).
It is very significant that 45.7 percent (1985 House
Appropriation s. Hearing s, Part 6, page 641), of all flight assists
were made by Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station) while
the system was endowed with only 18 percent of the total
personnel positions in the Air Traffic Control System. To us,
this looks like our people work in an environment where there
are more opportunities to provide assistance for safe flight.
Flight assists are usually emergency situations where
the pilot, passengers and aircraft are in jeopardy.
We believe that emergency situations create a tense
working environment which requires the utmost from the
journeyman in time-critical situations where superior judg-
ment is required.
In this matter, we believe that the Federal Aviation
Administration itself has expressed the strains upon the
Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station) far more elo-
quently than we ourselves can express it. In the case of
Marvin A. Miyai (an Air Traffic Control Specialist (Station))
v. Federal Aviation Administration, before the United States
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
Merit Systems Protection Board, at a hearing dated February 7,
1985, (Docket No. SFO7528510116), Mr. Malachy T. Coghlan, for
the FAA, said of Mr. Miyai's job:
"There are few jobs that require more alertness
of mind, more sound judgement, [sic] the ability to
assimilate information, and the ability to make split
second decisions. The stresses and the strains of the
job are incalculable. And there are very few people
who can perform in that position."
The Comptroller General of the United States recently
published a Report to the Congress, "Safety Standards on
Small Passenger Aircraft," (GAO/RCED-84-2 of January 4, 1984)
which is germane to the Flight Service System and sets forth
the major safety problems with smaller aircraft. While the
report deals specifically with small air carrier aircraft,
the problems set forth are applicable, we believe, to all
general aviation aircraft. All of these are the primary
customers of Flight Service. An appropriate excerpt from this
report follows:
"For a variety of reasons it is difficult to attribute an
aircraft accident to any single cause or factor. According
to NTSB reports, aircraft accidents generally result from
multiple causes. Yet, based on the accident statistics,
one fact remains clear: Flying in a small carrier aircraft
is definitely less safe than flying in a large one.
"How small commuter and air taxi aircraft are used obvi-
ously affects the level of safety that they can achieve.
For example, small commuter aircraft average twice as
many take-offs and landings per hour flown as do large
air carrier aircraft (most accidents occur during take-offs
and landings). Also, commuter and air taxi aircraft serve
a significantly larger number of lesser equipped or remote
airports than the large aircraft. Finally, small aircraft
spend considerably more time operating at lower altitudes,
where flying weather is often less than ideal.
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
"The incongruity of this situation, however, is that small
aircraft, which are operating potentially under the more
hazardous conditions, are being built and operated under
FAA's least stringent airworthiness standards and operating
rules for air carriers.
"MAJOR CAUSES AND FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE AIR CARRIER
ACCIDENTS
"While we cannot draw a direct link between accidents and
specific causes, our analysis of FAA accident data for
the period 1975-81 indicates that the causes and factors
of air carrier accidents are related to three areas.
--personnel (including pilot and flight crew and other
personnel such as mechanics and dispatchers),
--environment (airports, weather, and terrain), and
--aircraft (airframe, powerplant, instruments and
accessories).
"Using FAA and NTSB data and our own analyses of these
data on 1,327 commuter air taxi accidents that occurred
during 1975-81, we found that about 53 percent of the
accident causes and factors were personnel-related,
30 percent were related to the environment, and 14 per-
cent were related to the aircraft."
In general aviation, overall, it is estimated that 40~ of
all accidents are weather related.
To approach this from another point of view, the National
Transportation Safety Board (SB 85-01 of 1/10/85) has published
the stark body count of fatalities for the past ten years as
follows:
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
U.S. Air Carriers*
All Scheduled
Service
(Airlines)
(14 CFR 121)
General Aviation**
Air Taxis
Catmuters Air
TOTAL Taxis
Commuters
General
Aviation
P.
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
122
38
78
160
351
0
4
233
15
4
1,355
1,353
1,430
1,761
1,380
1,392
1,410
1,268
1,119
1,094
69
100
118
155
77
103
94
72
62
55
28
27
32
48
66
37
34
14
11
41
1,258
1,226
1,280
1,558
1,237
1,252
1,282
1,182
1,046
998
Total 10 yr. 1,005
period
13,562
905
338
12,319
AIRCRAFT HOURS FLOWN
P.
1984
7,302,000 35,626,000 3,328,000 1,757,000
30,541,000
P. Preliminary
* About 2,200 aircraft
**Over 200,000 aircraft
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
Further, on February 28, 1985, the Chairman, National Transpor-
tation Safety Board, testified before the House Committee on
Appropriations (Transportation) as follows:
"Tremendous strides have been made in aviation
technology in the brief eight decades of its
existence, and yet aviation continues to be plagued
by one of the oldest causes of accidents in the
book -- weather."
From this, one might observe that the FAA is concentrating
the preponderance of its personnel and material resources in
the safest and least accident-prone sector of the Air Traffic
Control System (e.g., scheduled carriers).
From all this, we can only conclude that Air Traffic
Control Specialists (Station) experience physical and mental
strain and hardship in the workplace and that the work is
unusually taxing and extremely stressful, perhaps more than
any part of the Air Traffic Control System.
It is for these reasons that the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, in implementation of 5 USC 5542, included Air Traffic
Control Specialists (Station) within the provisions of that
law. The pertinent provisions are quoted below:
"(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this subsection for an employee of the Department
of Transportation who occupies a nonmanagerial
position in GS-14 or under and, as determined by
the Secretary of Transportation,
(A) the duties of which are critical to the
immediate daily operation of the air traffic
control system, directly affect aviation
safety, and involve physical or mental strain
or hardship;
(B) in which overtime work is therefore
unusually taxing; and
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
(C) in which operating requirements cannot
be met without substantial overtime work;
the overtime hourly rate of pay is an amount equal to
one and one-half times the hourly rate of basic pay
of the employee, and all that amount is premium pay."
Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station) are employees of
the Department of Transportation. They do occupy nonmanagerial
positions in GS-14 or under. Their duties are critical to the
operation of the Air Traffic Control System and directly affect
aviation safety. These duties involve physical and mental strain
and hardship and, therefore, overtime work is unusually taxing.
Lastly, operating requirements cannot be met without substantial
overtime work.
In the House Appropriations Hearing for Fiscal Year 1985,
(Part 6, page 641), the FAA estimated that overtime in the
Flight Service System would be 163,561 hours.
Not only has the Secretary of Transportation determined
that Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station) are covered
by 5 USC 5542, but also the Secretary has reaffirmed this
determination every pay period since the enactment of the law.
Not only is special overtime pay for Air Traffic Control
Specialists (Station) provided in 5 USC 5542, but also premium
pay is provided by the Congress in the Continuing Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1983 (P.L. 97-276 Oct. 2, 1982) quoted below:
"55546a. Differential pay for certain employees of the
Federal Aviation Administration
"(a) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration (Hereafter in this section referred to
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
as the 'Administrator') may pay premium pay at the rate
of 5 per centum of the applicable rate of basic pay to--
"(1) any employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration who is--
"(A) occupying a position in the air traffic
series classified not lower than GS-9 and
located in an air traffic control center or
terminal or in a flight service station;..."
"(e)(1) The Administrator may pay premium pay to any
air traffic controller or flight station specialist of
the Federal Aviation Administration who, while working
a regularly scheduled eight-hour period of service, is
required by his supervisor to work during the fourth
through sixth hour of such period without a break of
thirty minutes for a meal.
"(2) Premium pay paid under paragraph (1) of this
subsection shall be paid at the rate of 50 per centum
of one-half of the applicable hourly rate of basic
pay.n
Here again the law is permissive as to its application,
and the FAA Administrator has, for good and sufficient
reasons, included Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station) as a
group of employees qualified for the premium pay authorized.
We, accordingly, hold that the community of Air Traffic
Control Specialists (Station) is a unique group of Federal
employees who, by law, is worthy of special consideration and
that exclusion of this group from early retirement benefits
accorded to other Air Traffic Control Specialists of the same
2152 designation and covered by 5 USC 5542 and PL 97-276
constitutes unfair and inequitable treatment.
Unfair and inequitable treatment is demonstrated daily by
the "Second Class Citizen" label which Air Traffic Control
Specialists (Station) have applied to themselves on a national
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
basis with the attendant low morale environment which is
apparent to even a casual observer.
The enabling legislation, Public Law 92-297, provided
that only those GS-2152 series Air Traffic Control Specialists
employed at centers and towers would be provided coverage
and benefits under that legislation.
The discriminatory aspects of that legislation has divided
the different categories of Air Traffic Control Specialists into
the "haves" and the "have-pots" and has created a very real
caste system within this safety and life-saving system.
This discrimination has escalated at all levels of the FAA
and the. legislation as enacted has proved to be detrimental,
rather than beneficial, to aviation safety.
The cumulative effects of the discrimination by FAA, which
favored one sector of its Air Traffic System workforce to the
exclusion of another, has resulted in feverish attempts on the
part of those covered by the legislation to protect the "private
domain" interests, and they were provided with all possible aid
and comfort by the FAA in continuing and expanding the area
of discrimination.
The question is sometimes asked, "Can the Government be
sued in aircraft accidents involving alleged negligence on
the part of Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station)?".
The answer to that question is in the affirmative, and numerous
examples are set forth in this Committee's Hearing Record
Serial 94-40.
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
Accordingly, legal burden is upon the shoulders of every
Air Traffic Control Specialist (Station) in the everyday
performance of his duties.
While pay is not a subject of this hearing, discrimination
certainly is a major subject. One only needs to refer to GAO
Report "Development of the Classification Standard for Flight
Service Station Specialists" (FPCD-79-52 of July 25, 1979) to
find significant examples which are quoted:
"Because of the possibility of widespread work slowdowns
by controllers, the Commissioners intervened directly in
the decison making process.PATCO was granted a personal
hearing by the Commissioners who overturned the Standards
Division's position which resulted in a one-grade increase
for controllers over what the Standards Division had recom-
mended. NAATS was also granted a personal hearing, but
it was unsuccessful in its appeal for higher grades for
flight service station specialists."
We hold that if the Commissioners so much as lifted a finger
in response to a threat of a widespread work slowdown by "con-
trollers'; then the Commissioners were, in fact placed in the
position of condoning the commission of an intended felonious
act. Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station) did not
threaten the Commissioners in any way nor did they contemplate
any such action.
In the Secretary of Transportation's comment on this GAO
report, the Secretary stated:
"It was the Department's and the agency's expectations and
point of view that selected air traffic control and FSS
facilities should be elevated one grade level.
"Although the GAO concludes, and we agree, that proper
procedures were followed by the CSC, we continue to be
convinced that high-volume FSS facilities should be
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
established at the GS-12 level. Nothing in the report
changes this belief or resolves this dilemma."
5 USC 2109 defines Air Traffic Controller as "an employee
of the Department of Transportation who is actively engaged
in the separation and control of air traffic", and provides that
the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations or
determine the application of this section. As previously argued
in this testimony, we contend that no FAA personnel on the
ground controls aircraft.
It is interesting to note at this time the document used
by the Secretary of Transportation to implement the provisions
of P.L. 92-297. It is identified as Department of Transporta-
tion Federal Aviation Administration Order 3410.11 a, dated May
16, 1975, and reprinted August 30, 1976, with change 1 entitled
"ATC Second Career Program".
The "Foreword" to this order, signed by the "Acting
Administrator", J. W. Cochran, is quoted:
"EXPLANATION. This order revises the ATCS Second Career
Program to incorporate recommendations of the ATCS
Second Career Review Committee, guidance contained in
Supplemental Instruction letters issued as supplements
to Order 3410.11, and recommendations from Washington
and field offices."
No mention is made of retirement benefits or other subjects
addressed in this order and yet, on page 1, we find that the
purpose of the order is significantly expanded:
"PURPOSE. This order implements Public Law 92-297 which is
designed to improve the conditions of employment for air
traffic controllers by offering retirement benefits, job
training and special appeal procedures for those who are
involuntarily removed from air traffic control work; and
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
to establish maximum age limitations for recruitment
under 5 U.S.C. 2109, 3307, and 3384."
The coverage section is of such importance that it is set forth
in its entirety.
"5. COVERAGE
a. This order applies to and affords coverage for:
employees of DOT with five or more years of
career controller service who meet all of the
following requirements; or the immediate super-
visor or a nonsupervisory employee who meets all
of the following requirements:
(1) Offically assigned to an air traffic control
facility;
(2) Actively engaged in the separation and control
of live air traffic;
(3) Occupies a position which requires him to meet
on a continuing basis the physical qualifica-
tion standards established by the Civil Service
Commission for an air traffic controller.
b. This coverage includes and is limited to full
professional level controllers and their immediate
supervisors; those assigned as flow controllers;
and employees receiving developmental training at
or above the established entry levels as defined
by the classification standards and the Civil
Service examination announcement at time of en-
trance on duty. Also included are controllers
assigned to a combined Flight Service Station/
Tower where the tower duties are performed on a
regular, recurring basis. Where a second level
or higher supervisor is required to serve as a
career controller or as the immediate supervisor
of a career controller or as the immediate super-
visor of a career controller performing the full
range of first level supervisor duties on a
regular, recurring basis for a substantial
portion (e.g., 50$ or more) of his time, and
these duties are included in the official
position description, he is covered under P.L.
92-297.
c. This coverage does not include employees tempor-
arily assigned to control of live air traffic
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
primarily for the purpose of maintaining profi-
ciency in order to aid in the performance of
their other regularly assigned duties or primarily
for research, development, or evaluation purposes.
Also not included are employees receiving pre-
developmental training at grades below the normal
entrance level, supervisors of flow controllers,
and second level and higher level supervisors
except as provided in item b above.
d. Decisions regarding application of coverage
provisions in this paragraph will be made by the
regional/center directors. This authority may
be redelegated to the manpower division chief.
The regional/center director, or his designee,
may refer questions regarding interpretations
of coverage provisions to the Director of
Personnel and Training."
We note that only five years of "career controller service"
as a full-time permanent employee of the Department of Trans-
portation is required to qualify.
Not only are "full professional level controllers" included
in the coverage, but also those receiving developmental training
and those employees holding undefined "flow controller" posi-
tions.
The authority for making decisions regarding coverage
provisions is delegated to regional/center directors of which
there are thirty-one in number. Such authority may be further
delegated to "manpower division chiefs."
Accordingly, we have 62 officials who may be authorized to
make decisions relative to coverage under this order. How any
standard for approval/disapproval can be achieved under these
conditions is indeed mysterious to us.
To look further into the implementing order, we believe
the section on retirement is germane to the confusion:
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
"12. RETIREMENT
a. An employee who meets the service and age require-
ment under P.L. 92-297 has a vested right to such
entitlement, which he may exercise at his option,
regardless of subsequent job assignments within the
Federal service. The annuity computed for employees
retiring under the provisions of this order is
based on the regular retirement formula with a
guaranteed minimum equal to 50$ of the high-3 average
salary. The annuity is not reduced even if the
employee is under age 55 at the time of separation.
b. In order for the Civil Service Commission to determine
whether the retirement claim of an employee is
governed by P.L. 92-297, it is necessary that a
certification will be made by the chief of the
servicing payroll branch and will be based on the
determination of creditable service made by the
respective manpower division chief in coordination
with the air traffic division chief, as appropriate.
A completed FAA Form 3300-30, signed by the manpower
division chief, or his designee, will be forwarded
along with Standard Form 2801, Application for
Retirement, (and any other applicable material) to
the chief of the payroll branch. Based on this
information, the payroll chief will make the necessary
certification on Standard Form 2806, Individual
Retirement Record. Where the employee claims credit-
able experience which is not readily determined, due
to inadequate records, position descriptions, etc.,
the employee should seek verification of his claimed
experience from his former supervisor, if available;
from old records at home or elsewhere; and furnish
his own statement of the duties he performed, time
performed, and circumstances surrounding the perfor-
mance. All the pertinent information should then be
sent along with the employee's application for
retirement to the manpower division for determination.
The Regional Flight Surgeon will also submit a
recertification that the employee is permanently
disqualified for career controller work."
In this section we note that additional officials partici-
pate in the approval/disapproval determination relative to the
"certification of creditable service," i.e.:
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
Chief of the Servicing Payroll Branch;
Air Traffic Division Chief;
Designee of the Manpower Division Chief.
Not only are additional authorities designated, but also
the selection provides that creditable service may be certified
by a former supervisor or by an unsworn self-serving statement
by the employee himself relative to his own stewardship.
From this implementing order 3410.11A,it is difficult
for us to understand how any knowledgable Air Traffic Control
Specialist (Center/Tower) would be denied the benefits provided
by Public Law 92-297.
By way of review, this issue with kindred subjects was
considered by this Committee in the 96th Congress and reported
favorably [House Report 96-726 (Part I)] after exhaustive,
in-depth hearings conducted by Chairperson Schroeder, Subcom-
mittee on the Civil Service. (Serial 96-37)
The Bill was subsequently referred to the House Appropri-
ations Committee which reported the Bill adversely (House Report
96-726, Part 2) but with an important recommendation quoted as
follows:
"The Committee is cognizant of the potential for
detrimental effect on employee morale resulting from
the exclusion of flight service station specialists
from programs such as those authorized by Public Law
92-297. The committee intends, therefore, to recom-
mend a further review of this problem and its impact
on aviation safety. The committee believes that this
further study is necessary before a decision is made
with respect to inclusions of flight service station
personnel in this program." (Italics supplied)
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
On July 24, 1980 - House Appropriations Committee directed
further review and report (House Report 96-1193) quoted below:
"Under Public Law 92-297, air traffic controllers can
qualify for an early retirement program, but flight
service station specialists are not entitled to
similar benefits. In part 2 of the report of H.R.
1262, the Committee recommended a further review
of this situation. This Committee reiterates this
recommendation and directs the FAA, in cooperation
with an independent organization, to report on this
matter no later than September 30, 1981."
Finally, on November 24, 1981, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration forwarded his report to the
House Committee on Appropriations. In his covering letter
the Administrator stated:
"Based on the findings and conclusions presented
by JWK International, we do not find any evidence
which warrants the extension of early retirement
benefits to Flight Service Station Specialists."
This was an excellent opportunity for the Administrator
to express his own views on the issue since the entire Flight
Service System is an important part of his organization. He,
however, remained silent and relied completely on the views of
an outside entity. We can only infer that the FAA Administra-
tor had no position he considered worthy of consideration by
the Appropriations Committee.
Believing the JWK International study to be inadequate,
the NAATS leadership commissioned the authoritative personnel
firm of Ruttenberg, Friedman, Kilgallon and Associates, Inc.,
to critique the FAA product, which they found to be faulty.
These conclusions were forwarded to the House Appropriations
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
Committee which, subsequently, on August 19, 1982 (Report 97-783)
"EARLY RETIREMENT - Under Public Law 92-297 air traffic
controllers can qualify for an early retirement program,
but flight service station specialists are not entitled
to_ similar benefits. ~-" to part Z` of House 'Report 96-726
the Committee-recommended a further review of this
situation. This study was completed in November, 1981,
and an analysis of the study was provided to the
Committee earlier this year. Because of the questions
raised regarding the validity of the conclusions
contained in the study, the Committee is considering
requesting a General Accounting Office evaluation of
both the study and the subsequent analysis."
The conferees, meeting on the Department of Transportation
and related agencies appropriations in 1983, considered this issue
to be of such importance that it was addressed in the Confer-
ence Report:
"The conferees urge that the study and the analysis
relative to eligibility of flight service station
specialists for early retirement under Public Law 92-297
be referred to the General Accounting Office for evalua-
tion, analysis and report." (Congressional Record,
Volume 128, No. 46, Monday, December 13, 1982, page H
9512)
Eventually, in May 1983, the FAA Administrator, in compliance
with the Congressional mandate, forwarded the two studies
to the General Accounting Office.
On March 27, 1984, the United States General Accounting
Office report B-214320, "Review of Studies on Early Retirement
of Flight Service Station Specialists," the GAO concluded:
"Our review showed the JWK's study results are inconclu-
sive. The results do not support FAA's conclusions
that FSS specialists should not be afforded early
retirement ."
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
And that, Madam Chair and Members of this Subcommittee,
is where the matter stands today.
In our view, the recommendations to aircraft pilots by
Air Traffic Control Specialists (Station) are just as important
and just as vital to aviation safety as the recommendations by
Air Traffic Control Specialists (Center, Tower), including
such geographical locations as O'Hare, Kennedy, Los Angeles
and any other area.
The issue is one of fairness and equality, and our com-
munity of Specialists have been second class citizens since the
passage of PL 92-297, and they consider themselves as such.
It is axiomatic that all personnel in the same personnel
category must be treated equally and fairly if high morale,
good order and discipline are to be achieved. This is not
the case in the air traffic control community where there
exists a caste system of noblemen and serfs.
We believe it to be appropriate to quote the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House
Committee on Public Works and Transportation in his hearing
record "The Impact of Weather on Aviation Safety". (98-440;
pages 425-26)
"We did not begin this inquiry with the thought that it
might solve the weather problem, but I believe we did put a
handle on some of the things which will help in improving
our accommodation of weather into the Nation's air trans-
portation system.
"Initially, we learned some alarming statistics from
the Safety Board as to the impact of weather on general
aviation, commuter airlines, and the air carrier opera-
tions. The percentages quoted for the number of fatal
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
accidents where weather was considered a factor seem to be
far beyond what the safety investigators had expected to
find, and certainly they were shocking to us.
"The loss of even one life is difficult to accept, but
the 5-year total of 4,000 tells us that a lot of people
may be concerned about weather. But not enough people
are talking about how to avoid flying into these turbulent
cells.
"We heard of the planning activities of some carriers
who utilize all the weather information available so as
to avoid flying near or into what may be a hazardous
situation. But we also heard of some of the difficulties
associated with general aviation attempts to obtain
weather information from flight service stations.
"It became prettz~ clear that the message being given
by aZZ the witnesses is that suspect weather cells
should be avoided just as one aircraft should avoid the
path of another aircraft." (Italics added)
And lastly, Madam Chair, we invite your attention to a
study which has come to our attention only this month. It is
entitled:
"PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO UNVARYING (STEADY) AND 2-2-1
SHIFTS: MIAMI INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT SERVICE STATION
(FAA-AM-85-2 - dtd February,1985)
By C. E. Melton
Civil Aeromedical Institute
Federal Aviation Administration
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma"
The Civil Aeromedical Institute is the FAA's own medical
research activity and Dr. Melton has been involved in and has
conducted many studies related to stress in the Air Traffic
Control environment.
Some excerpts from this report are germane to this
hearing:
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
"In 1974 a stress index was formulated in this laboratory
based on excretion levels of the stress indicator hormones
(SIH's) in urine (KGS, E, and NE). This index facilitated
comparison of stress at various ATC facilities (5,7). Basic-
ally, the index consists of the product of resting and
working values of each SIH mathematically treated so as
to provide a unitary common denominator for each SIH.
The SIH's are treated in this way so that each will have
equal importance in stress assessment; otherwise, the
catecholamines' importance would be overwhelmed by the
steroids' importance because of the far greater amount of
steroid material in urine compared to catecholamines. The
individual indices are designated cst (KGS), ce (E) and
cne (NE). The average of the three indices is designated
Cs, the composite stess index."
(underlining added)
"When stress indices for all ATC facilities studied are
listed (Table XIX), MIA IFSS tops the list as the most
stressful (Cs=2.60)."
(MIA IFSS means Miami International Flight Service Station.)
Comparison of Various ATC Facilities ~ Means of a Stress Index
C
C
C
C
Facility
s
st
a
ne
Miami IFSS ("82)*
2.60
.95
1.03
4.85
O "Hare ATCT ('68)
1.05
1.41
.75
.98
Opa Locka ATCT ("72)
.84
.64
.74
1.15
Atlantic ARTCC ('73)
.82
.76
.34
1.37
Miami ARTCC ("72)
.76
.61
.71
.96
Los Angeles TRACON ("74)
.75
.27
1.10
1.44
Houston
ATCT ("70)
.74
1.27
.29
.65
Oakland
TRACON ("74)
.72
.23
1.31
.61
Houston
ATCT ('71)
.68
.89
.62
.52
Oakland
TRACON ("72)
.60
.62
.76
.43
Los Angeles TRACON ('72)
.60
.66
.34
.81
Fort Worth ARTCC ("73)
.34
.22
.58
.20
*NOTE: The Csfor Miami IFSS was subsequently corrected as per
the Addendum (pages 29-30) to 1.46.
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
"It was thought that perhaps the high level of excretion
of NE might be a reflection of the age of the subjects.
However, the correlation between NE excretion level and
age is not statistically significant (r=0.29, p> 0.30).
Some of the subjects were on medication for control of
blood pressure; however, there was no apparent significant
correlation between medication usage and NE excretion.
Analytical reruns and audits of laboratory procedures have
likewise failed to reveal experimental error as the cause
of the high values. Further, urine collection procedures
were identical to procedures used in other studies. The
same personnel performed these analyses by the same
methods as in the previous studies."
(underlining added)
"A diligent search for experimental error has delayed
this report beyond the reporting time normally required
for studies of this type and the search will continue as
long as personnel and facilities are available for this
purpose or until the validity of the high values is
established.
"The MIA IFSS employees as a group possibly show the
highest level of acute workload stress of any ATC facility
yet studied.''
It is apparent to NAATS that the Miami International
Flight Service Station did not fit the mold which we believe
was presupposed by the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute.
In fairness to Dr. Melton, he did include information
as to his checks and double checks of all procedures in the
laboratory reruns. In fact, at the end of the report he included
an addendum to express his views, not based on fact or research,
but based on his belief and conjecture=
"It is now believed that, by human error, samples
for creatinine analysis were taken from the nonacidified
moiety, resulting in low creatinine values. Because
the weight of creatinine forms the denominator of the
creatinine-based ratio, calculated SIH's were inordinately
high. The fact that all SIH values were high, impelled
us to look first at the creatinine analysis, but the
samples for the reruns were again taken from the urine
previously set aside for creatinine analysis, thus giving
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
 Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3
the same result as the first run. It was only when we
started from "square one" that we realized what had hap-
pened."
(underlining added)
The last sentence in the above paragraph is not under-
stood since throughout the report it is apparent that the
CAMI staff and Dr. Melton started from "square one" many
times.
Even with his "correction" Dr. Melton states:
"Because the error is a relatively constant one, we
do not believe that conclusions regarding differences
in the two shift patterns are compromised. The com-
puted level of stress is changed, however, to about half
the value. reported."
And finally FAA's Dr. Melton states:
"The Miami International Flight Service Station (MIA
IFSS), though, still retains its number one position on the
stress index list, surpassing even O'Hare Tower during the
high-stress time of the 1968 ATC slowdown (IFSS Cs= 1.46,
ORD Cs= 1.05"
(ORD means O'Hare Tower.)
Thank you Madam Chair.
Approved For Release 2010/04/22 :CIA-RDP89-000668000100060005-3