Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


I think the playing field is level now. Twenty years ago, if a white male
controller trainee demonstrated incompetence he was washed out while female
and minority trainees checked out. Now everybody eventually checks out
without regard to race, gender, or competence.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.

Modest credit for prior military service seems fair enough (if it
is *relevant* service, at least), but how does *getting injured*
make you a better candidate?

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


Modest credit for prior military service seems fair enough (if it
is *relevant* service, at least), but how does *getting injured*
make you a better candidate?


What in the previous message suggested points were given for getting
injured?

What in the previous message suggested points were given for getting
injured?


The credit for a purple heart.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

What in the previous message suggested points were given for getting
injured?

The Purple Heart is awarded for injuries received as the direct result of enemy
action.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:

FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and
an additional 5% for a Purple Heart ...

Modest credit for prior military service seems fair enough (if it
is *relevant* service, at least), but how does *getting injured*
make you a better candidate?

What in the previous message suggested points were given for getting
injured?

The bit about the Purple Heart.

From http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm:

2-8 b. (4)

Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify
award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other
projectile created by enemy action.

(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.

(c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical,
biological or nuclear agent.

(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident
resulting from enemy fire.

(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy
generated explosions.

Yes, I omitted the qualification regarding enemy action, but the
basic question remains.

How does *getting injured* make you a better candidate?

Imagine two guys going through the same battles together, one of
whom gets hit by an enemy bullet while the other isn't. Now, I
can see how their *experience of battle* may be relevant when
applying for a job, but I don't see how a single bullet wound
makes the one better suited than the other.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.

BuzzBoy wrote:
The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

That's right. Center controllers are minorities, there's a lot more of
us tower controllers out here.

The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem


Chip Jones wrote:

OK pilots, try this one on for size. As you likely know, there is a wide
and growing rift between the career FAA bureaucrats (aka FAA Management) who
run the monstrosity called the federal Air Traffic Organization, and the
career FAA air traffic controllers who make that monstrosity work in the NAS
on a daily basis. Regardless of where you stand on the politics of US air
traffic control (funding, privatization, user-fees, labor issues, whatever),
the ugly, on-going feud between Management and Labor in air traffic control
may finally have reached a point where you as a pilot will be personally
affected.

This just in:

***
Notice to all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees Please Post This notice
is intended to advise all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees of recent
occurrence in the Eastern Service Area. Controllers have been
encouraged, through the actions of supervisors, to look the other way
when it came to pilot deviations that did not result in a loss of
separation. We have all heard supervisors say "no harm, no foul" on
more than one occasion.

Until now, this has not created problems for bargaining unit
employees. Recently a facility in the Southern Region issued formal
discipline (Letter of Reprimand) to a NATCA bargaining unit employee
for failure to report a pilot deviation. An aircraft (Air Carrier) was
told to hold short of a runway, read it back, and proceeded to go onto
the runway. This resulted in a go-around with no loss of separation.

In the reprimand, the manager acknowledged that the controller was in
no way at fault operationally, but that he had violated an FAA order
by not reporting the deviation, and as such, was being issued
disciplinary action. During recent third level reviews, the Agency has
held steadfast to their position.

As your [NATCA title deleted], the only advice I can give you
is to protect yourself and your career. Your failure to advise your
supervisor of a pilot deviation may result in disciplinary action.
Even if no loss of separation occurs. Inform your supervisor
immediately if you witness a pilot deviation. Put the responsibility
on their backs.

Be warned!! Taking a "no harm, no foul" attitude with pilots could
result in harm to yourself.
***


Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my
small slice of the NAS. I don't report them unless separation is lost,
because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality. Pilots help
controllers, controllers help pilots, and the NAS ticks along like an old
clock. I'm not changing the way I do business, but I wanted you to know
that other controllers might, in order to cover themsleves against
antagonistic Management.

Regards,

Chip, ZTL