Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance



10/26/2022

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government. The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision. There is no right of further appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Introduction

The appellants’ position is classified as Air Traffic Control Specialist (Terminal), GS-2152-12, but they believe their position should be classified at the GS-13 grade level.[1] The appellants’ position is assigned to the Nellis Air Traffic Control Facility (NATCF), 57th Airfield Operations Flight, 57th Operations Support Squadron (OSS), 57th Operations Group, 57th Wing, Air Combat Command (ACC), U.S. Department of the Air Force (USAF) at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) in Las Vegas, Nevada. The appellants perform essentially identical duties and are all assigned to the same official Air Force (AF) Standard Core Personnel Document (SCPD). Therefore, we have processed and adjudicated this case as a group appeal. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Background and general issues

The appellants’ position was previously classified as Air Traffic Control Specialist (Terminal), GS-2152-13, assigned to SCPD number 9H9G806. As a result of a 2010 Department of Defense (DoD) directed consistency review and a 2016 audit of the appellants’ position, the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Central Civilian Classification Division reclassified the appellants’ position to Air Traffic Control Specialist (Terminal), GS-2152-12. The downgrade became effective August 19, 2018. The appellants’ SCPD was amended to reflect the classification of their position at the GS-12 grade level and they remained assigned to the same SCPD number 9H9G806. Subsequently, the appellants appealed the classification of their position to the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS). On January 27, 2020, DCPAS issued a decision sustaining the classification of the position at the GS-12 grade level.  

The appellants make various statements about the classification review and evaluation process of their position conducted by their agency. They question how their agency measured traffic density and believe both AFPC and DCPAS decisions were reached in error due to using inaccurate material data and information. Specifically, the appellants disagree with their agency’s determination to remove “overflights” when measuring traffic density. The appellants state “[t]he agency applied erroneous traffic density data thus tilting final equations findings, disregarded [Office of Personnel Management] OPM appeal decision precedence by eliminating approved air traffic operation numbers and chose to rely on a disconnected individual versus a subject matter expert for DoD military operations as they interface with the National Airspace System (NAS).” In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of their position. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCSs) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112). Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the appellants’ concerns regarding their agency’s classification review and evaluation process of their position is not germane to this decision.

The appellants state OPM’s PCS for the Air Traffic Control Series, GS-2152, issued in 1978 was written for FAA and not for DoD air traffic controllers, thus the PCS includes outdated classification criteria applied to civilian and military air travel in its infancy. Since then, the appellants state air travel movements have evolved and the number of aircraft in the air have increased yet the airspace is the same. However, the adequacy of grade level criteria in OPM standards is not appealable (5 CFR 511.607). All OPM General Schedule PCSs are consistent with the grade level definitions of work established by law. These definitions are based on the difficulty and responsibility of the work at each level and the qualifications required to do that work. Therefore, it is the difficulty and complexity of the work rather than any specific air travel movement or increase of aircraft in the air that continues to determine the grade level. Furthermore, all occupations change over time, some more rapidly and profoundly than others, but the fundamental duty and responsibility pattern and qualifications required in an occupation normally remain stable. Any duties not specifically referenced in the PCS can still be evaluated by comparison with similar or related duties that the PCS does describe, and with the entire pattern of grade level characteristics. Thus, grade level criteria in OPM standards are valid and careful application of the appropriate PCS to the work an appellant performs should yield the correct grade for their position. 

Position information

The appellants and their supervisor (Supervisory Air Traffic Control Specialist, GS-2152-13) at the time the appellants submitted this appeal to OPM, certified to the accuracy of the duties described in their official SCPD number 9H9G806. In addition, during our supervisory interviews, all current supervisors also agreed with the accuracy of the appellants’ SCPD. 

Nellis AFB, “Home of the Fighter Pilot,” is part of the USAF ACC located approximately eight miles northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. It is a major focal point for advanced combat aviation training. The 57th OSS manages Nellis AFB’s diverse airfield, airspace, and flight scheduling/Host Aviation Resource Management activities. It provides air traffic control capabilities that enable flying units to conduct advanced operational tests, tactics development and training missions, and is also responsible for radar, airfield and weather systems maintenance, flight simulator operations/training and weapons support.  

The appellants are assigned to the NATCF, a Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) facility. The NATCF is the primary radar approach control facility for Nellis AFB and North Las Vegas airports. It also provides approach control services for Creech AFB and satellite airports including Beatty, Tonopah Municipal, Lincoln County, and Alamo airports. Nellis AFB and McCarran International Airport lie within the Las Vegas Class Bravo airspace. The Las Vegas Class B airspace is an area of positive radar control for all Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) and Visual Flight Rule (VFR) aircraft, which extends from the surface to 10,000 feet. The NATCF provides Air Traffic Control (ATC) services in the northern portion of Las Vegas Class B airspace. The southern portion of Las Vegas Bravo airspace is controlled by Las Vegas Radar Approach Control (TRACON). The FAA has assigned airspace to the USAF (i.e., Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) which includes the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), which is managed from Nellis AFB. The NTTR consists of a total area of approximately 12,000 square miles that is used for realistic air warfare training by U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps units, and units of allied nations. The NTTR is divided into three parts: 1) Restricted Areas; 2) Desert Military Operations Area (MOA); and 3) Reveille MOAs. The facility has other airspace delegated by the Los Angeles, Salt Lake, and Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs).  

The staff of the NATCF includes approximately 17 civilians and 45 military air traffic controllers divided into two crews of 31 controllers each. The facility is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The controllers work the day shift from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; the mid-shift from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; or the night shift from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and rotate shifts every two weeks. The NATCF has 16 operational positions.  These include Lee Radar; Lee Radar Assist; Sally Radar; Sally Radar Assist; Sunrise Approach; Sunrise Approach Assist; Thulley Approach; Thulley Approach Assist; Coordinator Terminal; Coordinator Enroute, Range Monitor; Rancho Arrival; Aerial Track Refueling; Aerial Track Refueling Assist; Clearance Delivery; and Controller-in-Charge (i.e., “Watch Supervisor”). The appellants are qualified for and regularly rotate among all positions. The number of positions working each shift is determined by the Watch Supervisor based on the airfield traffic activities and training requirements of controllers. The appellants rotate positions on average every hour and a half, but at times may perform their position for a longer period (e.g., up to two and a half hours). Rotation of positions are determined by the Watch Supervisor depending on traffic demands and qualifications of the controller. The Watch Supervisor position is generally maintained by one controller throughout an entire shift. Depending on the traffic positions may be combined such as those with an “assist” position. The night shift is usually staffed with a minimum of two radar controllers and a Watch Supervisor, who handle reduced terminal activity and enroute traffic in joint-use areas, unless NTTR missions are scheduled during night hours requiring the Watch Supervisor to adjust hours and position schedules.  

When serving as Watch Supervisors, the appellants provide technical oversight of all the operations of the NATCF. This position requires maintaining awareness of air traffic and instructions provided by all active positions. The appellants also provide air traffic control training (i.e., classroom, simulator, or on-the job) for controllers to meet certification requirements for upgrade and qualifications in the air traffic control career field. Additionally, they observe and evaluate trainee performance and provide oral and/or written feedback on performance. 

In reaching our classification decision, we carefully reviewed and considered all the information provided by the appellants and their agency, including their official SCPD, which we incorporate by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal, we conducted a group telephone interview with two of the six appellants and follow-up interviews with the appellants’ group representative. We also conducted separate telephone interviews with each of the appellants’ current supervisors (i.e., three Supervisory Air Traffic Controllers (Terminal), GS-2152-13). 

Series, title, and standard determination 

The agency classified the appellants’ position in the Air Traffic Control Series, GS-2152, titling it Air Traffic Control Specialist (Terminal), and evaluated it by applying Part II of the grading criteria in the PCS for the GS-2152 series. The appellants do not disagree with the agency’s title, series and standard determination and we concur. 

Part II in the grading criteria of the GS-2152 PCS is designed for direct application to trainee controller positions, and to all full performance level positions in those terminals which, on a regular basis, rotate controllers through several different positions that are characteristic of the most difficult positions of operation in the facility. Part II is, therefore, designed to evaluate the highest level of control work which all controllers would perform for a significant amount of time. Based on interviews with selected appellants and confirmed by management, all six appellants rotate on a regular basis through all the positions of the facility and are fully qualified to and perform the highest level of control work of the facility. Our evaluation of the grade level of the appellants’ position by application of Part II of the PCS for the GS-2152 series follows.

Grade determination

Part II of the GS-2152 PCS is used to evaluate positions responsible for issuing air traffic control instructions and providing flight assistance to aircraft flying within a designated area around an airport or airports. The duties, responsibilities, and qualifications required to control air traffic in terminals vary according to the type of aircraft operation (i.e., VFR or IFR) and whether radar is used. Air traffic control terminals are differentiated into four major categories based on the primary type of control services provided. These categories are non-approach control terminal, nonradar approach control terminal, limited radar approach terminal, and radar approach control terminal. As defined in the GS-2152 PCS, a radar approach control terminal provides radar control of aircraft operating to or from the primary airport and frequently adjacent airports, and the control of aircraft transiting the area under the control of the terminal. Airports served by this category of terminals include major air carrier airports as well as airports with significant amounts of traffic in other user categories. Although, the appellants’ terminal facility is not a major air carrier airport, the NATCF provides air traffic control to military and civilian aircraft operating in a radar environment using IFR. Thus, the facility most closely meets the definition of a radar approach control terminal. 

The two classification factors differentiating work at various grade levels for Air Traffic Controller positions in terminals are (1) Knowledge, Skills and Abilities required of the controllers which is directly related to the type of control services provided by the terminal, and the various procedures and techniques the controllers must know and apply; and (2) the Complexity of the Controlled Environment which is influenced most significantly by the demands from the density and congestion of aircraft placed on the knowledges, skills, and judgement of the controller. The grade level descriptions in the 2152 PCS, particularly at the GS-10 level and above reflects that density affects the first factor as well as the second factor. Since traffic density significantly influences, the grade level of controller positions, we will discuss this issue first. 

The GS-2152 PCS provides guidance for measuring traffic density. In measuring operations for radar approach control terminals, such as the appellants’ facility, instrument operations should be used. An instrument operation is the arrival at or departure from an airport of an aircraft operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan or the provision of IFR separation from other aircraft by a terminal traffic control facility.  These include, but are not limited to, IFR aircraft take-offs, landings, instrument approaches, unplanned missed approaches and IFR operations which transit the terminal’s control area. To compute the average hourly operations, the sum total of the operations handled on the 183 busiest traffic days of the year is divided by 183 to derive an average daily operations count. The daily average operations count is then divided by 16 for those terminals which are open from 16 to 24 hours, or by the actual number of hours the terminals are open for those facilities which are operated less than 16 hours a day. The NATCF provides air traffic control services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Therefore, 16 hours is used to compute average hourly operations for the facility.  

Traffic density calculations for the busiest 183 days for 2018 and 2019 provided by the agency show an average of 6.98 and 5.87 instrument operations per hour, respectively. [2] These numbers are significantly below traffic densities typical of full performance GS-12 controllers at radar approach control terminals, which typically handle from 20 to 59 instrument operations per hour (average) during the day and evening shifts.  Rather, the number of instrument operations per hour falls within the GS-11 grade level range for radar approach control terminals characterized as having light to medium densities of traffic, which regularly range up to 19 instrument operations per hour (average) during the day and evening shifts. 

To compute the average hourly instrument operations, the agency uses IFR arrivals and IFR departures and excludes all overflights from its calculations. The agency provides various reasons for its determination to exclude overflights from the facility’s traffic count. It relies on a statement made in OPM’s Digest of Significant Decisions and Opinions, No. 31 (September 2014), Article No. 31-04, to establish a precedent and support its determination to exclude overflights from traffic density calculations.  Such statement reads as follows: “Part III indicates that enroute traffic may only involve traffic passing through the airspace without requiring the terminal controllers to sequence the aircraft into or out of the terminal’s airspace. Including this traffic may result in an erroneous count for the terminal positions.”  Based on how this statement is written, it suggests it is taken from Part III of the GS-2152 PCS. However, we must clarify that this statement is not found in Part III of the GS-2152 PCS. Moreover, the GS-2152 PCS does not limit the control of aircraft overflights to Part III. Part II recognizes that controllers at radar approach control terminals may control aircraft transiting the terminal’s control area. Furthermore, digests articles are designed to aid classifiers in exercising their judgment. Digest articles do not supersede or supplement classification standards and do not constitute “case law.” They address specific issues found in a particular OPM appeal(s) and may not be used to establish precedents. Consequently, on this basis we are unable to support the exclusion of overflights from traffic density calculations. 

Furthermore, the agency states the Air Force Manual (AFMAN) defines overflights as “IFR or SVFR [Special Visual Flight Rules] aircraft that originate outside the area of jurisdiction and fly through the area without making an approach.” The agency states that this definition does not distinguish between overflights, aircraft transiting the terminal airspace, discussed in part II of the GS-2152 PCS, or enroute traffic passing through other delegated airspace. For this reason, the agency states it only uses traffic count for IFR arrivals and departures operations consistent with what the GS-2152 PCS defines. However, it is not the intent of the GS-2152 PCS to specifically identify all flight operations which may be included in the definition of an IFR operation on page 31 of the GS-2152 PCS. As noted in the PCS, the determination that a particular aircraft operation or maneuver meets the general definition of an aircraft or instrument operation is left to agency management. In addition, the agency states it is unable to determine the type of ATC provided to overflights, whether the controller is providing radar air traffic control or flight service assistance (i.e., weather advisories enabling pilots to continue, terminate or alter course to avoid adverse conditions).  

Traffic density calculations for fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020 provided by the appellants show an average of 60.26, 64.24 and 54.20 instrument operations per hour, respectively. Calculations for 2018 and 2019 fall within the range for GS-13 controllers at radar approach control terminals, which typically handle from 60 to 99 instrument operations per hour (average) during the day and evening shifts. To explain the operations per hour for 2020 which fall within the range for GS-12 controllers at radar approach control terminals, the appellants assert aircraft operations were impacted due to COVID-19 pandemic. The appellants used IFR arrivals, IFR departures, overflights, and special use area (SUA) operations for their calculations.  However, in accordance with AF policy stated in AFMAN 13-204v3, section 3.1.9. Air Traffic Activity Reporting System (ATARS), subsection 3.1.9.2.8, states “Do not count aircraft traversing special use airspace (SUA) (e.g., Military Operating Areas [MOAs]) as a separate operation for traffic count purposes.” Therefore, in accordance with agency policy SUA operations cannot be included when calculating the facility’s traffic count. The appellants do not disagree with numbers provided by the agency for the remaining operations of IFR arrivals, IFR departures, and overflights since the numbers for these operations come from same system (ATARS) to which the installation enters facility traffic data, and do not provide separate figures for those operations. 

Regarding the exclusion of overflights in the agency’s traffic count calculations, the appellants assert their agency labels all facility overflights as enroute activity.  In their appeal request to OPM, the appellants differentiate between “enroute overflights” and “terminal overflights.” They state that “enroute overflights” as termed are aircraft operations that both originate and land outside NATCF controlled airspace as opposed to “terminal overflights” which are those aircraft operations that originate in airspace controlled by other agencies, radar identified by NATCF, and are separated and sequenced/spaced (using altitude, vectors, and/or speed adjustments) through several controlled ATC corridors and handed off to approach controllers where they land at airports within NATCF designated airspace. However, the appellants also assert that overflights are IFR operations and no matter what airspace it is transiting, the same type of ATC is provided to any overflight aircraft, thus overflights should be included to determine instrument hourly operations. 

Based on the issues described above, OPM requested that the agency contact the installation’s Command or any appropriate official and provide the number of overflights for the same 183 busiest days for 2018 and 2019, where the appellants took control from their terminal of aircraft operating under IFR flying through their terminal airspace where they had to sequence the aircraft in and out of their terminal airspace, and/or where they provided any other air traffic control to overflight aircraft under IFR such as separating aircraft using altitudes, vectors and/or speed adjustments. The agency solicited information and clarification from HQ Air Combat Command (ACC) and HQ AF Flight Standards Agency (AFSA) and were advised that the overflight counts are total overflight counts for each day and that the overflight data cannot be sub-divided into specific instances as requested. That said, the agency submitted updated calculations to include overflights which show an average of 33.15 and 32.45 average instrument operations per hour for 2018 and 2019, respectively.  

While OPM was not able to obtain documented details about the type of ATC provided to overflights from the installation level, as discussed later in this decision, our fact-finding shows and as confirmed by the appellants’ respective supervisors having firsthand knowledge of the work assigned and performed, the appellants are responsible for providing air traffic control to overflight aircraft transiting the facility’s delegated airspace. Therefore, based on the functions performed by the appellants and in the absence of documentation to show otherwise, we are unable to support the exclusion of overflights from the facility’s traffic count. Therefore, we use the agency’s 2019 calculations including overflights of 32.45 average instrument operations per hour to evaluate the appellants’ position. 

It is noted that while agencies have primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions, OPM is not asserting that overflights should always be counted when calculating densities of traffic across all AF and/or DoD RAPCON facilities. Rather, they may be counted when warranted depending on controller duties performed and/or based on documented data of the ATC concerning specific operations. The duties of the appellants’ position as compared to the two classification factors and appropriate grade level criteria are discussed below. 

The GS-12 level is characterized by exceptionally difficult and complex nonradar work situations in the non-approach control and nonradar approach control terminals. Also included at this level are full performance control positions in radar approach control terminals where the performance requirements substantially exceed those required for radar control work at the GS-11 level.

The GS-13 level includes extremely difficult, exacting, and complex control work in the radar approach control terminals. This level is characterized by the requirement for radar control of air traffic under very demanding conditions imposed by extremely heavy densities of traffic handled on a regular basis; sustained periods of peak traffic activity and few lulls for any extended periods; very complex configurations of terminal airspace; and very intricate and complicated procedures for controlling and expediting traffic utilized almost continually. 

Knowledge, skills, and abilities required

At the GS-12 level, the kinds of knowledge, skills and abilities are similar to the next lower level.  However, in comparison with the GS-11 radar controller who typically handles a light to medium density of traffic, the GS-12 controller is faced regularly with peaks of heavy traffic. Under the more restrictive time and space limitations imposed by the greater density of traffic there is the requirement for greater precision in determining appropriate aircraft movements and formulating control instructions; more intense and precise coordination among the controllers; consideration of the effect of action by any specific aircraft on a larger number of other aircraft in the terminal airspace; and consideration of a larger number of more rapidly changing aircraft positions and a greater variety of alternative actions for individual aircraft. During the recurring heavy density periods typical of this level the GS-12 coordinates control actions with other controllers and issues instructions to pilots almost simultaneously. Often this type of terminal provides radar service to a number of satellite airports. The difficulties imposed by such factors as the need to possess and apply knowledge of numerous procedures and airport configurations, procedures for satellite airports, noise abatement procedures and complex runway problems are substantially intensified by the heavy densities of traffic characteristic of GS-12 radar control.  

At the GS-13 level, the radar controller is distinguished from GS-12 by the significantly higher level of judgment, skill and ability required to control such an extremely heavy density of traffic that there are few lulls during which accumulated traffic can be easily moved. Thus, an error in judgment could result in major delays that would impact the movement of air traffic over a large area of the country. The GS-13 controller regularly has a complex, congested and rapidly changing pattern of traffic under his control for prolonged periods. This pattern typically consists of a variety of aircraft with widely varying speed and performance characteristics.  

Under the conditions of extremely heavy density and congestion characteristic of the GS-13 level, controlling aircraft with widely varying performance characteristics requires an exceptionally high level of ability, and rapid and precise judgments. Such problems as determining what headings to issue to aircraft, and the precise moment to issue sequencing and spacing instructions so that separation is maintained (i.e., fast aircraft do not overtake slower ones) are substantially more complex than at the GS-12 level. To handle traffic under these conditions for prolonged periods of time requires the GS-13 controller to plan, listen, speak and act almost simultaneously. Each sequence of control movements requires contacting several pilots and coordination with other controllers. Under these conditions, unexpected situations such as a sudden new rush of traffic, a declared emergency by an aircraft, or a sudden and severe change in weather conditions at the airport present problems of exceptional complexity for the GS-13 controller. 

The appellants’ position meets the GS-12 level. Like this level, their position requires knowledge and ability to apply the procedures and techniques for controlling aircraft operating under IFR including sequencing, separation and vectoring under restrictive time and space limitations. They also apply knowledge of the function and operation of radar equipment and its various displays, the adjustment of the equipment, and the ability to detect malfunctions and interferences. Using radar equipment, the appellants consider aircraft position, direction of movement, estimate future aircraft positions and issue precise instructions to pilots as to what headings to fly, when to ascend, descend or turn, and at what speed and altitude to fly within terminal airspace. Concerning aircraft transiting delegated airspace, while the appellants agree they provide flight assistance entailing weather advisories, they are also responsible to ensure FAA separation criteria is maintained by transiting aircraft. The appellants state that there are often overflights flying from different center sectors at the same altitudes and crossing the same coordinates. They must recognize this situation and determine the exact moment for directing aircraft away from each other or from other traffic. To do this, they positively control the aircraft by adjusting altitude assignments, turns/vectors, and speed adjustments.  An example provided by the appellants comparable to this situation involved an aircraft flying from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City at 35,000 feet altitude and another aircraft flying from Denver to San Francisco also flying at 35,000 feet altitude. In this instance, because separation standards will be broken, they must first ensure the aircraft are 10 miles apart so that they can sequence and separate them. In other cases, the appellants assert they reroute aircraft, adjust altitudes or turn an aircraft in a direction that creates an offset in flying distances to provide for safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. The appellants’ knowledge and skill with the radar equipment permits reduced separation among aircraft and allows the appellants to maintain control of aircraft as intended at the GS-12 level.

Similar to the GS-12 level, the appellants possess knowledge of numerous procedures including Nellis AFB noise abatement procedures and use of complex runway procedures, e.g., Simultaneous Opposite Direction Operation (SODO), and knowledge of airport configurations including those for adjacent and/or satellite airports.  The appellants issue instructions to pilots meeting FAA Order 7110.65, Nellis AFB Instruction 11-250, and other intricate requirements in accordance with appropriate Letters of Agreements (LOAs) with FAA facilities. Furthermore, like this level the appellants are regularly faced with peaks of heavy traffic density due to the airspace surrounding Nellis AFB which includes busy air traffic from Creech AFB, North Las Vegas Airport, McCarran International Airport and the NTTR. This heavy traffic density imposes more restrictive time and spacing instructions, more intense and precise coordination among controllers, and consideration of the effect of action by any aircraft on a larger number of aircraft in terminal airspace as expected at the GS-12 level.

The appellants’ position does not meet the GS-13 level. At this level, the kind of knowledge and skills required are similar to those typical of the GS-12 level.   However, the skills, abilities and judgments required of the GS-13 controller are significantly influenced by the greater density of traffic which must be handled on a regular basis. Unlike this level, the appellants do not experience an extremely heavy traffic density during the day and evening shift periods resulting in few lulls during which accumulated traffic can be easily moved.  In contrast to the GS-13 level, errors in judgement by the appellants do not result in major delays that impact air traffic movement over a large area of the country.

Although, the appellants also provide ATC to commercial and civilian aircraft transiting delegated airspace, that traffic does not involve ATC service demands for major airways or a large volume of transient aircraft, thus any impact is generally limited to the airport terminal.

The appellants state that an error in judgment can result in “ripple” effects causing delays at airports such as North Las Vegas and McCarran International airports and can eventually impact the NAS. However, unlike the GS-13 level, there is no evidence to establish that delays in such airports based on an error in judgement on the appellants’ part would impact air traffic movement over a large area of the United States.  

The appellants do not experience complex, congested and rapidly changing patterns of traffic under their control for prolonged periods of time characteristic of GS-13 level controllers.

The GS-2152 PCS describes this pattern resulting from having a variety of aircraft with widely varying speeds and performance characteristics, thus requiring an exceptionally high level of ability, and rapid and precise judgements. Every aircraft in the DoD inventory having varying speeds and performance characteristics can be seen operating into and out of the NTTR. However, our fact-finding disclosed the traffic from participating mission aircraft entering and exiting the training range are limited to specific traffic patterns. Specifically, exercises involve the military aircraft to originate from the terminal area, are sequenced into a special operations area, execute a mission set, exit the special operation area, return to terminal airspace, and are sequenced and released for VFR recovery. Moreover, as indicated in Nellis AFB instructions, all flight activities within the NTTR operate under Military Authority Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft (MARSA) provisions and ATC do not provide IFR services to participating mission aircraft under the provisions of MARSA. Consequently, the flight operations by the varying military aircraft entering and exiting the range do not consist of rapidly changing patterns of traffic that are under the appellants control for prolonged periods of time. Furthermore, although the appellants issue instructions to aircraft when in formation for spacing and sequencing, these instructions are issued to the leader of the formation without having to instruct each pilot separately or coordinate instruction with other controllers, thus not requiring the appellants to plan, listen, speak and act almost simultaneous as intended at the GS-13 level. 

Also, aircraft based at Nellis/Creech AFB are primarily subsonic and supersonic fighter type aircraft (e.g., F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-5/T-38, A-10, E3 EWACS) where normal climb out is accomplished at 56-350 knots, and all aircraft (excluding helicopters) fly the initial portion of the approach at 300 knots.  The performance characteristics and speeds of these aircraft are not indicative of the varying performance characteristics sufficient to support complex, congested and rapidly changing patterns of traffic and to require a high level of ability and rapid and very precise judgements expected at the GS-13 level. 

As opposed to the GS-13 level, the appellants do not encounter and resolve problems of exceptional complexity due to unexpected situations. The PCS describes unexpected situations as involving a sudden new rush of traffic, a declared emergency by an aircraft, or sudden and severe changes in weather conditions at the airport. Our fact-finding does not show that unexpected situations such as those described above pose problems of exceptional complexity which the appellants must resolve. However, as no terminal is exempt from changing weather conditions, we considered the desert environment surrounding the AFB which may cause aircrews to operate under extreme weather conditions to include heat, high winds, and lightning. Our fact-finding disclosed that Nellis AFB often experiences high winds year-round, but these are not unexpected and there are precise established guidelines for operating under such conditions. When other extreme weather conditions are present, the Weather Flight (57 OSS/OSW) is responsible for determining and reporting the Fighter Index of Thermal Stress (FITS) levels and the 57 OG/CC will make the decision to fly or cancel sorties. Therefore, this condition is not met by the appellants. 

This factor is evaluated at the GS-12 level. 

Complexity of the control environment

Due to the heavy density of traffic present, radar terminals at the GS-12 level generally require 4 to 6 radar positions to be operational during the day and evening shifts. Because of traffic demands, these positions tend to become more specialized in the control functions they perform e.g., a particular position may handle only arrival or departure traffic.  More complex divisions of the control work and the assigned airspace are required at this level than in the GS-11 work situation. Thus, more intricate procedures must be developed to ensure that the necessary coordination is effected among controllers. The complicating environmental and operational factors described at the GS-11 level are intensified by the heavy density of traffic characteristic of this level.  Such factors as several busy runways, a substantial volume of helicopter traffic, provision of radar service to a number of satellite airports, and restrictive noise abatement procedures influence the already high level of difficulty and complexity characteristic of the GS-12 level. Radar approach control terminals at this level typically handle from 20 to 59 instrument operations per hour (average) during the day and evening shift period.

At the GS-13 level, terminals regularly handle an extremely heavy density and congestion of air traffic, significantly heavier than the peak traffic periods characteristic of the GS-12 level. Also typical of this level are very complex configurations and sectorization of terminal airspace. This is reflected in a larger number of navigational aids and specialized local procedures than is typical of the GS-12 level. Radar positions of operation at this level are more numerous and perform more specialized control functions. Because of the extremely heavy congestion of traffic as many as 7 to 10 radar positions may be required to handle such specialized functions as air traffic arrivals; departure traffic; operations at satellite airports; or the control of traffic transiting the assigned terminal area. Runway configurations are among the most complex and change frequently, requiring that controllers switch to different procedures for handling traffic many times during a typical work shift.  

Radar terminals at the GS-13 level are typically located at major air carrier hub airports. These facilities are key terminals in the sense that delays occurring at these locations impact the movement of traffic over a large area of the country. The demands placed on the skill, ability and judgment of controllers at this level by such factors as a large number of extremely complex configurations of airspace, restrictive arrival and departure corridors, complex and constantly changing runway configurations, noise abatement procedures, and mixtures of aircraft of different speed and weight categories are severely intensified by the extremely heavy density and congestion of traffic handled by the terminal, when compared to the relative difficulty and complexity of the terminal control environment at the GS-12 level.  

The GS-13 radar controller has an extremely complex, congested and rapidly changing pattern of aircraft under control for prolonged periods. Pilot contacts and coordination with other controllers are practically continuous. The GS-13 level controller works under almost constant pressure to make exacting decisions, since errors in judgment or failure to expedite traffic could result in a major slowdown. Radar approach control terminals characteristic of this level of difficulty and complexity regularly handle on the average from 60 to 99 instrument operations hourly during day and evening shift periods.

The appellants’ position meets the GS-12 level. As previously described, the six appellants are qualified for performing all positions and rotate among positions generally every hour and a half. Positions can also be combined depending on traffic demands, specifically when an “assist” is needed such as when, on a situational basis, the Range Monitor and Aerial Track Refueling are operating. When radar positions are combined consistent with this level, the NATCF has at least four to six radar positions operational during the day or evening shifts. During night hours, the facility is generally staffed with two radar positions and a watch supervisor.  Given the rotating nature of positions during the appellants’ shifts, they perform a variety of different functions and become more specialized in these (e.g., a certain position handles only terminal or enroute traffic) as intended at the GS-12 level. Similar to the GS-12 level, more divisions of the control work and the assigned airspace are required than at the next lower level. Thus, comparable to the GS-12 level, the AFB has developed intricate instructions and procedures to ensure necessary coordination among controllers, such as SODO procedures authorized only for DoD fighter aircraft, divert procedures, and SUA procedures for MOAs, Alert Areas, Live Fire Areas, and Parachute Operations.  

The environmental and operational factors of the terminal are also comparable to those described at the GS-12 level typically associated with heavy density of traffic. Nellis AFB is located northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada, with field elevation of 1,869 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The AFB is delegated Class B airspace with an area of positive radar control for IFR and VFR aircraft, which extends from the surface to 10,000 feet involving required ATC clearance for all aircraft to operate in the area. Airspace also consists of ATCAA consisting of the NTTR with restricted operation areas and MOAs. Outside the range complex but within the NATCF airspace are several high/low airways from instrument aircraft, numerous military low level instrument routes, and corridors used to move aircraft to/from Edwards Range Complex, Navy Fallon Complex, and the Utah Test Training Ranges. The NATCF has delegated airspace by adjacent FAA centers (LA Center/6 sectors, Salt Lake Center/5 sectors, and Oakland Center 1/sector) and three adjacent approach control facilities (Las Vegas/6 sectors, Dreamland/1sector, and Edwards AFB/2 sectors). 

The terminal has two parallel runways (RWYs) oriented at 030°/210° with 1,000 feet between the centerlines.  The east RWY (21L/03R) is 10,051 feet by 150 feet and is concrete with asphalt overruns. The west RWY (21R/03L) is 10,120 feet by 200 feet and the first 1,320 feet of 21R and first 920 feet of 03L are grooved concrete, the mid 7,879 feet and center 80 feet are concrete and the remaining is asphalt with asphalt overruns. Runway 21L is the primary instrument runway.  RWY 03 is used daily from 2200L to 0800L for departures and RWY 21 for arrivals unless winds, air traffic volume or operational requirements dictate otherwise.  Primary helicopter pads are the Jolly and Transient Helipads, and both are concrete. Creech AFB is the primary VFR divert for Nellis aircraft and is located NM to the northwest of Nellis AFB.  Creech has two runways.  RWY 08/26 is the primary runway with 9,002 by 150 feet of usable runway. If diverting to Creech AFB is not possible, other AFBs and the McCarran International Airport are considered. McCarran International Airport is located 11 NM southwest of Nellis AFB.  There are two sets of parallel intersecting runways, 07/25 (14,510 feet by 150) (10,526 feet by 150 feet) and 01/19 (8,985 feet by 150 feet) (9,775 feet by 150 feet). NATCF also has six satellite airports within its area of jurisdiction to which it provides services. 

Other factors include three navigational aids, i.e., Instrument Landing System (ILS), Global Positioning System (GPS), and Area Navigation (RNAV) and restrictive noise abatement procedures. Noise abatement procedures are mandatory for all aircraft during Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). When executing noise abatement procedures in conjunction with any instrument departure, aircrews are responsible for terrain avoidance (VFR climb) until established on a segment of the instrument procedure at which point the aircraft is considered IFR and further instrument departure restrictions are mandatory. Aircraft unable to comply with Nellis noise abatement procedures will advise ATC prior to departure. Like the GS-12 level, the appellants deal with the complicating factors described above consisting of busy runways, services provided to satellite airports, and restrictive noise abatement procedures which influence their already high level of difficulty and complexity. In addition, they experience a heavy traffic density of 32 average instrument operations per hour which falls within the GS-12 range of 20 to 59 hourly instrument operations.   

The appellants’ position does not meet the GS-13 level.  Unlike this level, the appellants’ terminal facility does not handle an extremely busy density (60 to 99 hourly instrument operations) and congestion of air traffic significantly heavier than the peak traffic periods characteristic of the GS-12 level. Also, the appellants’ control environment does not involve very complex configuration of terminal airspace. The GS-2152 PCS describes this as evident when a larger number of navigational aids and specialized local procedures exist than expected at the GS-12 level. Data shows that the facility uses three navigational aids typical of airports, i.e., i.e., ILS, GPS, and ARNAV. However, the minimum number of navigational aids in place at the appellants’ installation do not support a typical GS-13 level control environment involving so complex an airspace configuration and sectorization that a greater number of navigational aids and specialized local procedures is required than characteristic of the GS-12 level (the PCS describes the GS-12 level as requiring more intricate procedures to ensure necessary coordination). Unlike the GS-13 level, runway configurations at Nellis AFB are not among the most complex, i.e., having crossing or converging runways. Furthermore, noise abatement procedures are not as extensive as at the GS-13 level and unlike that level the appellants do not operate in a control environment of extreme density and congestion requiring regularly handling 60 to 99 on average instrument operations per hour.   

In contrast to the GS-13 level, the NATCF is not located in a major air carrier hub airport or transfer point location, thus delays occurring at the terminal do not impact the movement of traffic over a large area of the country. While the radar positions of NATCF are numerous and perform specialized control functions, as opposed to the GS-13 level this does not occur within the context of extremely heavy traffic density and congestion.   

This factor is evaluated at the GS-12 level.

Decision

The appellants’ position is properly classified as Air Traffic Control Specialist (Terminal), GS‑2152-12. 

 

[1] In the January 28, 2021, agency response to OPM’s request for an administrative report, we were informed that an additional appellant, Torrye D. Walker, left the organization prior to our adjudicating this appeal

[2] Traffic data for 2020 was unavailable at the time of OPM’s request. 

Back to Top