190 likes | 328 Vues
RADAR FINAL CONTROLLER. GET WELL PLAN. PAR Get Well Plan. BACKGROUND CURRENT PROBLEM POSSIBLE SOLUTION OTHER ISSUES DECISION. History. ‘95 Budget Cuts: Reduced to 18 facilities 10 CONUS, 8 OCONUS Saved $M and personnel Created 365 SEI and 7FVLP UTC
E N D
RADAR FINAL CONTROLLER GET WELL PLAN
PAR Get Well Plan • BACKGROUND • CURRENT PROBLEM • POSSIBLE SOLUTION • OTHER ISSUES • DECISION
History • ‘95 Budget Cuts: • Reduced to 18 facilities 10 CONUS, 8 OCONUS • Saved $M and personnel • Created 365 SEI and 7FVLP UTC • Ongoing taskings/attrition reduced asset pool
Current Problem • AEF will change sourcing method • Will require steady state sourcing • 13 Non-PAR radar flywheel facilities • Each will send up to 3 controllers to deployed locations with RFC • Mt. Home is an AEW without PAR
Possible Solution • Define Requirements • Qualify all radar controllers • Courses of Action: • Simulator program for orientation and refresher • Use TDY funds to train RFC controllers • Grandfather previous experience • Obtain Leadership Support • TDY funding/training and PAR approaches
Implementation Timeline • 2 Apr 99: Develop Get Well Plan • 12 Aug 99: Brief 90% solution to exec session • 25 Aug 99: Announce specifics via message • 10 Sep 99: Start local PARTS training • 13 Oct 99: Begin PAR training • 1 Oct 99: AEF 1 & 2 Deploy
Other Issues • Requirements • PAR Training Sites • TDY Flow • Funding/Wing Support • Long Term Affects
Issues Requirements • Current OPLANS are not supportable • Bare minimums will not sustain AEF • Supply based versus requirements base • AF guidance is to send fully qualified individuals • All deployed radar units have RFC • PSAB has some radar positions w/o 365 SEI • Provides some relief and ability to train • AEF based: All on-call assets + steady state req
IssuesShort Term Requirements • AEF Deployment--Worst Case • 13 non PAR radar facilities identified as flywheels • 3 positions at 4 rotations/year: 13 x 12=156 ($187K*) • More Manageable Training Rate • Only train the deploying individuals • Leave RFC controllers at unit level for on-call • Current steady state taskings from non-PAR • locations/AEF pair = 26 • 17 people x 4 (90 day rotations) = 68 ($82K*) • (*TDY estimate based on $1,200/person)
IssuesLong Term Requirements • Requirement Issues: • Growing additional 1C1X1 with 365 SEI • 2152’s in radar facilities • RFC Training at PSAB • RFC in-house training at PAR locations
IssuesPAR Training Sites • All PAR locations or selected sites: • Facilities Based on PAR Traffic Count/Location • Ability to increase PAR approaches • Follow-on Issues: Flow control, 1C131s allotment, training priorities, manning, etc.
Other Issues • TDY Flow Control • Funding/Wing Support • Long Term Affects: • Repeals ‘95 PAR Stop-Gap Measures • Eliminate the 7FVLP UTC • Possibility of re-alignment of RFC taskings • Decommissioning of selected PAR units
Decisions • General Methodology • Simulator and then live traffic • Proficiency via simulator • Training Locations (all versus some) • Training Flow Rates • Other Issues