A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/597273
those operators, w hich allow frequent movement between models. Other operators that consider this a threat have opted to segregate those aircraft with unique or different FMSs and have dedicated crews to fly those aircraft. Such action is common in the industry today and se rves to alleviate the threat and enhance safety. o Interestingly, one segment reported that they would like to see more flight deck compatibility across the industry since today's pilot force is much more mobile than in previous years. Flight crews migra te between models and between sectors (major airline, regional, business, etc.) and from their perspective, more commonality could significantly reduce training costs for all operators. As a result, OEMs are sometimes encouraged by operators to design a ne w airplane model or variant (and its flight deck systems) similar to previous models. Similar follow - on designs reduce the operator's cost of training for the new aircraft as well as differences training from existing aircraft. It may also provide an avenu e for type rating relief. However, this approach can also be a disincentive to introduce new technologies and design characteristics in an effort to limit the training impact. o The data on variation also suggests that there are higher frequencies of pil ot error resulting from negative transfer of learning between multiple versions of the same function. Variations of the same function are highlighted in fleets that have multiple versions of the same FMS. Some operators have several different combinations of FMSs and software on the same airplane type. As a result, a flight crew could fly several legs in one day and use different FMSs with different versions of the software on each leg. This taxes flight crews to ensure they are operating the system correc tly and when combined with the associated aircraft systems differences, higher rates of confusion and error can be expected. Some operators understand these operational and training issues and have subsequently taken aggressive action to address problems b rought about by variation by standardizing the path management hardware and software within their fleets. · Flight Procedures Team (FPT) – A lot of people do not understand what the FPT does, including myself sometimes, and there is a guide that came out last year that lists their responsibilities within the OSGs. Most of the subjects covered are IFP coordination, rulemaking, waivers, NOTAMs, MAGVAR and specials. If you are interested in this riveting read, I can send you a copy. · NPA o VOR MON - This was a review of the program. Funding for this program was approved 9/30/2015. Phase 1 will discontinue 74 VORs by 2020. Total targeted for removal is 308 and 649 will be retained. Service area breakdown: Eastern 131, Central 162 and We stern 15. Review of Existing Draft Recommendations o Ability of FAA to maintain NAS is being stretched. Options include: § Reduce numbers of procedures – focus of NPA § Augment workforce to maintain procedures through increased staff and/or outsourcing the work § Increased use of technology to expedite the maintenance process