1 / 19

RADAR FINAL CONTROLLER

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

thuy
Download Presentation

RADAR FINAL CONTROLLER

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RADAR FINAL CONTROLLER GET WELL PLAN

  2. PAR Get Well Plan • BACKGROUND • CURRENT PROBLEM • POSSIBLE SOLUTION • OTHER ISSUES • DECISION

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Other Issues • Requirements • PAR Training Sites • TDY Flow • Funding/Wing Support • Long Term Affects

  8. 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

  9. 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)

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. PAR Traffic Count

  13. TDY Training Support Rates

  14. Locations Requiring TDY Training(Non-PAR Radar Flywheels)

  15. Est: OCONUS RFC IN- HOUSE TRAINING

  16. Projected Get-Well Plan10 TDY Trained Controllers/AEF Pr

  17. 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

  18. Decision Time….

  19. Decisions • General Methodology • Simulator and then live traffic • Proficiency via simulator • Training Locations (all versus some) • Training Flow Rates • Other Issues

More Related