Here is a brief description of the ATSAP MOU.  The MOU creates a test program that will allow for us to make amendments as we attempt to make if work for air traffic controllers.  The major hurdle will be in creating an atmosphere where controllers are comfortable voluntarily reporting incidents considering the current climate of oppression and punitive actions on the part of the FAA.

As I have said before, we can sit back and wait for change to occur, or we can reach out and be the leaders in making that change happen.  This program will do that, or it will fall by the wayside as many other programs that have come before.  Hank Krakowski has verbalized many times the belief he has in ASAP, and that he will make this program a success.  We will likely begin testing in the Great Lakes Region, and if successful expand or amend the program as necessary.  As I pledged to John Carr and Russ Chew when we began work on this program in about 2003, I will assist in making this program a success.  It is now signed, and we will attempt to move forward.

Discussions and information will begin to be shared at Communicating for Safety this year on what our program entails.  I am available to answer questions for anyone that has them.  The NATCA Safety Committee has agreed to assist in the implementation of the program.  I will maintain a close hand during this test period of the program to ensure compliance with the terms of the MOU.  If the program becomes a success, I will eventually phase myself out of the process.

It is important to remember participation within the program is voluntary.  You may choose to not file a report and allow the ATO to investigate incidents as they would have through the normal course of business.  There are protections in place for individuals that did not know they were involved in an incident by allowing them to file a report within 24 hours of being notified that an event was reported for which they have involvement.  Again, you may choose not to, as the program is voluntary.  The protections provided are for individuals that voluntarily participate in the program.  This does not mean that NATCA accepts that discipline is ever acceptable to deal with performance issues.  It simply means that these agreed upon protections are extended to those that choose to participate.  If you do not participate, the processes that exist today will run their normal course.

Section 1.

The first section of the MOU is the purpose.  It is a reiteration of how the program is described in the Advisory Circular that created the concept of ASAP agreements for the Air Lines.

Section 2.

This section describes the benefits of the program for both the Agency and the Controllers.  For the Agency they will receive information that would otherwise have been gone unnoticed.  This information will be used to prevent the operational errors or accidents from occurring by using the information in a positive manner.  For controllers it creates a non-punitive culture in dealing with performance issues.  Lesser or no-action refers to the fact that skill enhancement or information sharing will be used rather than discipline or decertification.

Section 3.

The applicability of the MOU is for information used and shared while the employee is conducting the normal functions of their job.  It is not intended to cover issues involving the described exemptions of criminal acts, substance abuse, or gross negligence.

Section 4.

Program during is an 18 month test, for which either party may discontinue the program for any reason.  This program is voluntary for the Parties as well as individuals.  It is intended that the program and the MOU will be amended and evolved as we learn the best way to make this program applicable to air traffic controllers.

Section 5.

The basics of reporting are outlined in this section.  You have 24 hours from the time your shift ends to report an incident that you feel needs to be reported.  This could include a flawed procedure, all operational errors, an incident that could result in a Quality Assurance Review, or any other risk to the safety of flight.  If you fill out the report you are extended the protections of the ATSAP MOU.  The only exception would be if these incidents fall within the exceptions in section 10 (a) (3).  These would be the incidents of criminal activity, gross negligence, or substance abuse.

You are also given 24 hours from the time you are made aware that you were involved in a report filed by another individual.  These protections also apply to any other person within the Air Traffic System, even if they are not covered by NATCA.

Section 6.

The points of contact will be an Event Review Committee.  For the purposes of this test, the FAA AOV division will serve the role of the independent oversight group.  If this becomes a problem and we feel it is an incident about being out numbered.  We will insist on equal numbers on the committee.  According to the experts in the field of ASAP, a group of three has proven to be the most successful dynamic.  This group will be responsible for making the recommendations for correcting issues, and they will evolve the record keeping and reporting procedures to suit our needs.

Section 7.

The ATSAP Manager will be a non-voting representative that is responsible for ensuring the needs of the program are being met, information is being stored and made available, and be a general focal point when the ERC members are not together.

Section 8.

This describes all the roles of the Event Review Committee.  In addition to reviewing the submissions, they will monitor the success of the program and ensure reviews and evaluations of the data are completed.

Section 9.

These are the rules of how the ERC will conduct themselves.  Decisions must be a consensus.  This means the NATCA member must agree with the outcome.  The outcomes will be skill enhancement or even no action if appropriate.  Decertification and discipline is not an option. 

If consensus can’t be reached the issue will be removed from the program and treated as if the information was not reported.  The Agency may not follow up on an incident that was discovered through the ATSAP report.  If Agency action was placed on hold due to the issue being accepted into ATSAP, the recommendation needs to be made by the ERC and the Employees need to have agreed to participate for the issue to remain within the ATSAP program.

Section 10.

Holds a number of definitions and requirements for acceptance or exemption from the program.  Most importantly sole source includes all operational errors.  Even errors that set off the snitch program within a Center.  Repeated problems will be dealt with on a case by case basis, and a case that is later determined to not have met the criteria of being accepted into the program may be reopened.  This would be used if criminal activity, gross negligence, fraudulent reporting or substance abuse were involved.  This also reiterates that problems may not be dealt with as an individual issue, but rather may directed at system corrective actions.  This could be a flawed procedure or operating practice.

Section 11.

Is intended to ensure that individuals filing reports receive feedback on how the issue was handled.

Section 12.

Ensures that information and training on the program is available and employees are made aware of their rights within the program.

Section 13.

Ensures that changes to the program must be voluntarily agreed to by the parties.  This will never be the subject of an imposed work rule.

Section 14.

The data is stored by an independent third party and not the subject of a FOIA request.  This ensures that ownership of the data is jointly shared.  NATCA is entitled to the information stored within the database.