Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Metric Madness
The much ballyhooed metrics surrounding the Lockheed contract are starting to go into force, and the actual applications are approaching the absurd.
Example 1 – If an in-fight pilot call is not answered in 5 seconds, no matter what the reason, it’s a failure. Thus, if aircraft A calls while the controller is giving a clearance to aircraft B, and aircraft A is not answered in 5 seconds, it counts as a violation of the metric. The only way to avoid this failure is to stop giving B the clearance in mid-sentence, tell A to stand-by, then complete the clearance to aircraft B. If you think there might be a possible safety problem in such a scenario you’re in good company.
Example 2 – It was promised that flight plans would be filed within 3 minutes. Turns out the clock starts when the pilot states that he wants to file a flight plan. Quite often, though, pilots ask for information in the middle of giving their plan, like winds aloft, radar information, or even NAVAID or airport identifiers. It also is not unusual for a pilot to be creating the flight plan as he goes along. If any of these actions by the pilot causes the filing time to extend beyond three minutes, it is also a violation.
This apparently is the interpretation of the FAA. Why such silliness? There are a couple possibilities. One is that the FAA will try their level best to avoid paying Lockheed any of the bonus money for meeting metrics, so the hurdles are being set imaginatively high. A second is that the contract, still under seal, is actually written this way. Lockheed apparently wants to see what kind of data is collected over the next few months, and will then try and renegotiate some concessions on the metrics from the FAA. Good luck…
Time to start asking Mr. Boyer if this is what he was told regarding these wonderful metrics.
Example 1 – If an in-fight pilot call is not answered in 5 seconds, no matter what the reason, it’s a failure. Thus, if aircraft A calls while the controller is giving a clearance to aircraft B, and aircraft A is not answered in 5 seconds, it counts as a violation of the metric. The only way to avoid this failure is to stop giving B the clearance in mid-sentence, tell A to stand-by, then complete the clearance to aircraft B. If you think there might be a possible safety problem in such a scenario you’re in good company.
Example 2 – It was promised that flight plans would be filed within 3 minutes. Turns out the clock starts when the pilot states that he wants to file a flight plan. Quite often, though, pilots ask for information in the middle of giving their plan, like winds aloft, radar information, or even NAVAID or airport identifiers. It also is not unusual for a pilot to be creating the flight plan as he goes along. If any of these actions by the pilot causes the filing time to extend beyond three minutes, it is also a violation.
This apparently is the interpretation of the FAA. Why such silliness? There are a couple possibilities. One is that the FAA will try their level best to avoid paying Lockheed any of the bonus money for meeting metrics, so the hurdles are being set imaginatively high. A second is that the contract, still under seal, is actually written this way. Lockheed apparently wants to see what kind of data is collected over the next few months, and will then try and renegotiate some concessions on the metrics from the FAA. Good luck…
Time to start asking Mr. Boyer if this is what he was told regarding these wonderful metrics.
# posted by Skywise @ 9:14 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I would think a lot of pilots should start asking Mr. Boyer what he actually DOES know about this contract. Is this what the PILOTS wanted? Or did Mr. Boyer make a policy decision for them?
Since he never asked the AOPA members to weigh in on this, its pretty clear that he's negotiating with the FAA on his own.
Post a Comment
Since he never asked the AOPA members to weigh in on this, its pretty clear that he's negotiating with the FAA on his own.
# posted by 
: 11:32 PM
: 11:32 PM << Home
