Our response to a comment and our policy.

When I signed on a couple weeks to write for this blog I was tasked with responding to comments from our readers. Sorta like an ombudsman for a newspaper, for lack of a better title. I'll start with a rather lengthy comment from one of our local readers of TPCAU of .

13 paragraphs from this reader to get the point across. Was this ever a doozy! I'd like to state, for the record if you will, that we do not hate anyone. We do not slander anyone. We do not seek the respect of anyone. We do not lie about anything. (All charges made by this commentator.)

What we do is report what we see, what we read, and what we are told about the events that occur in this world of ours. Our goal is to bring attention to the people in this agency--usually, but not always, management--that endeavor to make the lives of air traffic controllers increasingly more difficult than it needs to be.

Many of our articles require an inordinate amount of time to develop and write. But, frustratingly, many of our commentators read only a bit of what is written and go off to post a comment that has nothing to do with the article. Instead of posting a comment that can contribute something to the "blog experience" (for lack of a better term at the moment) these few commentators will instead hurl charged and incendiary words to deflect what was written. Our writers typically won't engage with commentators that appear to us as lunatics.

However, our writers do understand that some of our stories are bound to hit a nerve and may raise the ire of some. Clearly the case with our October 7th commentator. Sifting through the rambling diatribe we discovered the repeated charge that we at TPCAU--namely me since I wrote the article-- were using the crash of Trooper 2 to further "our cause." Again, that cause is to bring light to the failings of this agency. Ms. Paton was simply a bit player in the story as she is in any other activity.

Below is the October 7th comment following the blog titled The failed culture. As always, we look forward to comments that contribute something to the experience.



Anonymous said

...…..Long ago and far away, I met this person, who was a compassionate and amazing Air Traffic Controller. Many years after her indoctrination into pushing tin, she lost a fellow coworker to a brain tumor. He was an amazing man and an incredible Air Traffic Controller. But at a young naïve age his arrogance at the job and what it entailed, caused him to hurt his coworker and cause her to walk away and quit. Ten years later he sought her out and found her, and he assured her that she was amazing at what she did and that her compassion and abilities threatened himself and their coworkers ten years prior, and they had deliberately caused her professional destruction. And she knew at that moment, that they had a kinship, and she forgave him unconditionally.

It was ten years since they had been trainee air traffic controllers together and they never spoke again. And yet, she has never forgotten Rob Daly from Manassas, Virginia and never forgotten the man and controller that he was.

My friend, this compassionate controller is also the “Controller X” from the famed John Carr “Blog” where her true ATC story told it the way it truly is and reached out to those who didn’t understand. This lady is also the Air Traffic Controller who was featured on The Learning Channel for what we as Controllers do every day and what we give up, personally, professionally, and emotionally. By the way…(You Tube it….Air Traffic Control) and you will find her. You will find us: the safest, most amazing Air Traffic System in the world!!!

But our weakest link is not the FAA or the Administration. Our weakest link that threatens the moral ability for her and every one of the Air Traffic Controllers to successfully, safely, and compassionately do their jobs, is whiny, dishonest, melodramatic, sensationalizing, persons, that link a very sad and tragic accident that claimed five very special lives to an Air Traffic Controller who wasn’t even in the building when a mechanical accident happened!

Ms. Paton, as you so, (and if you are going to slander her---spell it right)…However, Ms. Paton never told anyone in the POTOMAC TRACON, (so sadly known for this ridiculous and libelous blog) that they are not to change an aircraft code. In fact, the crash in question has nothing to do with code changes, Air Traffic, or Ms. Paton who was nowhere near the building at the time.

But how sad or weak or small a group, that they have to reach, libel, and slander people or an agency to further their cause…How ugly and pathetic that they do it at the expense of other’s lives!!!

There is a four month baby girl without a daddy; there is a 17 year old fighting for her life! There are widows and victims and heartbreak that have nothing to do with Air Traffic Control or Ms Paton and yet, some very arrogant misguided people have the audacity to link this trauma to the fact that at $170,000 per year, they can no longer wear jeans to work.

We as Air Traffic Controllers give our very lives to do what we do and we do it well. But there comes a time when you realize that maybe you aren’t at the top of your game…that you can no longer push tin the way you did when you were 24….and maybe someone has told you that you too have a tumor like your long ago friend Rob Daly, (and yes, she does)…

But one day, most Controllers wake up and say, “I’m not at the top of my game,,, I cant push tin any longer, but I know that I can stand down and teach the new generation of controllers to do so, and Miss Paton will;….and that is caring, and that is maturity, and that is the spirit of THIS FAA-----not, “I earn almost 200K and I cant wear my Tartan plaid and jeans so I will hate all—blame all—and continue to be mediocre!!”

By the way, (The Scotts would be ashamed at your blog and my friend, the Air Traffic Controller who you have slandered and linked to a tragic accident are mortified that you call yourself a Scott, or an Air Traffic Controller. If you want to do something proactive, go see Jordan’s family,,,, contribute to a little tiny baby’s fund who just lost her daddy, but stop blaming a boss who wasn’t there, an agency who pays you well more than you deserve, put some real clothes on (that William Wallace would sanctify) and really become the Air Traffic Controller that each of us was meant to be.

My gal friend, Ms. Paton, is Controller X, (ask John)…she is The Learning Channel’s controller, she is a veteran controller who understood when it was time to hang up her headset and help in other ways…but you, you sit there in your fake kilt and you lie and you hurt and you destroy. How about you put more energy into real information and our flying public.

Get your facts straight before you slander my friend…she told your coworker not to change the code of a special operations aircraft…he loudly and belligerently challenged her on procedure, (which by the way, she will still proffer) and he marched off angry. So two weeks later you have the distaste and lack of class or compassion to link her to a tragic accident to further your cause. My friend, you have not only weakened your cause but lost the respect of every Air Traffic Controller at PCT, and not to mention the Scotsman in our building.

Oh yes, and before you expel any more slanderous lies about supervisors that are still amazing Air Traffic Controllers, how about you go see Mickey’s little baby, Steven Bunker’s family, Tonya’s family, Ashley’s family, or Jordan Wells!!!! Stop blaming the FAA for your predicament and reach out to these victims. If you hurt so much for them, share some of your fortune and stop slandering management for their non involvement. Grow up, and realize that the NTSB gets to decide why those lives were so sadly lost and not you and your sanctimonious lies.

October 7, 2008 9:21:00 PM EDT

Call for funds.

Hard not to notice but we've taken to collecting some cash for our brothers John Carr and Bob Marks.  John is the immediate past President of NATCA and Bob is the immediate past Regional Vice President of NATCA's Western-Pacific Region.

And if you've just come out of hibernation or don't know why they need money then read this , and this, then this and you will then be up to speed on this issue. 

Click on the Chip-in links to the left and you'll be taken to another page to transfer your funds to them via PayPal.  WE URGE ALL OF OUR READERS TO GIVE GENEROUSLY.  5, 10 dollars, whatever you can spare.  This lawsuit is close to coming to an end but without money they lose.  We lose. 

And in these closing days of the 110th Congress (read: lame duck) what better time to cancel your NATCA PAC contributions for a few weeks. Click on the handy link, download the form, fill it out, and mail it in today.  Take that money and Chip-in for John and Bob. 

We'll use a motto that is all too often spoken from the PAC pushers: We support those that support us.  And that's just what you will be doing when you cancel your NATCA PAC and send that cash to John and Bob instead.

We need to raise $8,065 dollars for Bob by this coming Monday, October 13th. As Bob says: "to avoid irreparable financial harm."   And the need is just as great for John.

So read all about it.  And Chip-in today.

 

Legal Beagle.

Taking a peruse of the legal mumbo jumbo world of labor law after reading President Forrey's explanation of why he and/or the NEB failed to disperse funds to John Carr and Bob Marks has caused us even more grief and astonishment at how NATCA is becoming, if not already, a shell of its former self under his tutelage.

The union's basis for inaction is stated as,

"The governing law is Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, a federal law whose sole function is to govern the internal operations of labor unions and which imposes a civil fiduciary duty on the officers of a union who have responsibility for handling and spending Union money. That civil fiduciary duty mandates that Union funds be spent for the benefit of the Union and its members."

Here's the actual law (highlighted text for emphasis):

SEC. 501. (a) The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party or in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization. A general exculpatory provision in the constitution and bylaws of such a labor organization or a general exculpatory resolution of a governing body purporting to relieve any such person of liability for breach of the duties declared by this section shall be void as against public policy.

The author (we'll call him Pat) of the union's explanation left out some important clauses of the law that changes the subtext of what he is trying to convey to his followers. That is that John and Bob aren't entitled to a dime. They are.

Pat tries to convey to the ill-informed, or if you choose to take his words at face value- the misinformed, that the union, because of a 'fiduciary duty', that he conveniently fails to explain what that entails, and in which we are about to, bars action on his part. Well, fiduciary duty simply conveys trust and confidence, in this instance, overseeing the union's money. And in this case both trust and confidence have been lost with us.

Read the law. Especially the highlighted words. Taking into account the special problems... Well, this matter certainly fits that bill. And to imply that the union walking away from John and Bob is for the benefit of the organization and its members is about as fiendishly miscalculating as anything we've ever seen. The chilling effect on the union's field representatives is already palpable.

A key point that Pat can not avoid but failed to note is that his fiduciary duty is administered in accordance with resolutions adopted by the governing bodies. That governing body is the 2008 NATCA Convention. And the delegates to that convention- who, according to the union's constitution, are the 'supreme body with full and complete authority over all the affairs of the Association'- adopted the resolution directing the NEB to establish a defense fund with $300,000 dollars and to disperse that money to John Carr and Bob Marks.

Pat goes on to write,

"neither was a Union officer nor acting at the behest of the Union at the time of the July 2007 blog that is the subject of the lawsuit – and would actually be to the detriment of the Union."

Excuse me, but there is nothing in the law (see above), which we are supposed to believe are Pat's guiding principles (lacking any others), that exempt John and Bob because they were not 'acting at the behest of the Union.' 'At the behest of' has not a thing to do with this. That's just making stuff up. Regardless, as a matter of fact , Bob, and, by association and extension, John, were functioning at the request of the union's elected representative in Phoenix.

(TPCAU's chronicle on the entire lawsuit issue can be found here.)

Bob supplied written documentation to the Union's representative in Phoenix, upon his request; John wrote about it in his blog; and Pat plagiarized John's blog in an e-mail to the FAA leadership. All three--Bob, John, and Bob-- were, albeit in different fashions, working toward a common goal: to prevent union members from being directly supervised by an individual who, in previous job assignments, has brought harm and ill to them.

Any claim that the lawful actions of the union (i.e. dispersing funds per the convention resolution) would be a 'detriment of ('to' is the proper word, Pat) is a matter that must be raised in a lawsuit. A suit which would have to be brought by a member of the union. (See Section 501(b) for particulars.) What is the likelihood of that happening? Pretty low is our guess.

And Pat continues,

"...and the use of Union funds to finance a defense that conflicts with the Union’s defense is not permissible under Section 501(a) -- Union officers simply cannot authorize the disbursement of Union funds to litigate against the organization for which they are responsible."

Again, this is a matter that would be determined by bringing suit against the union. Bring it on. If the union is named in the Gilding v. Carr suit then it's time to lawyer up instead of playing chicken with the train train. Either we're all in or we're not. Like should of been done from the beginning: Mess with one NATCA member then you mess with 14,000 (or however many are left after the dissolusioned send in their 1188s.)

It is long past time for the NEB to stop shirking it's responsibility. Remember, together we can't be beat. NEB: Let's make it a motto that means something.

In the meantime: Donate to the John Carr and Bob Marks Legal Defense Funds.
Go to this link.

And the bus runneth over.

Time to add my nickels worth and write the next chapter of the NEB throwing John Carr and Bob Marks under the bus. If you haven't heard by now, and if you're at PCT and unless you check in to the NATCA BBS from time to time then you probably haven't seen a report from either of our two convention delegates on what passed, what didn't, and how they voted. That's because there is no report. So to fill some of the void I'll report on just one of the proposed resolutions that was decided by the convention body. (It is numbered R08-003 in the green booklet that was mailed to each NATCA member and hereintoforeandeverafter referred to as The Jack. Jack as in to jack up that short yellow bus that the NEB drove over John and Bob.)

Back on August 11th my fellow TPCAU writer Madman wrote the article Watch out for that bus. If you don't have the background on this issue then read it before you read any more of my article.

September 12th-ish. Miami Beach. NATCA 2008 Convention. The delegates are greeted with a 13 page dissertation from Dr. No, more aptly referred to as Dr. I Dunno (AKA NATCA General Counsel Rita Graf) outlining the official reasons why the union drives the short yellow bus without mirrors the way they do and The Jack is not going to work. Here's the long version and here's the executive summary if you'd prefer.

Fast forward to whatever day (not important) that resolution 08-003 was taken up. The green booklet version was substituted with this:

“NATCA shall assist all present and former NATCA members in their legal defense arising from Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CIV2007-016329 (Gilding V. Carr et. al.) Such assistance shall be in an amount equal to the sum of the NATCA member's defense costs in this case and shall be paid to the defendants no later than September 30, 2008.

“NATCA shall assist all present and former NATCA members in their legal defense arising from Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CIV2007-016329 (Gilding V. Carr et. al.) Such assistance shall be in an amount equal to the sum of the NATCA member's defense costs in this case and shall be paid to the defendants no later than September 30, 2008.

Alternatively, NATCA shall make a contribution to any present and former NATCA members in an amount equal to their defense costs in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CIV2007-016329 (Gilding V. Carr et. al.). Such contribution shall be made to the defendants no later than September 30, 2008.

Alternatively, NATCA shall purchase the website and domain known as "The Main Bang," for a sum equal to the sum reported to the union by Jaburg & Wilk, P.C., Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, and Ward, Keenan & Barrett, PC, which represents the fair market value of said web site. Such purchase shall be completed no later than September 30, 2008.

Alternatively, NATCA shall contract with Mr. John Carr, Mr. Bob Marks and Mr. Jerry Johnston as subject matter experts in the area of the First Amendment, civil litigation, defamation cases and supervisory malfeasance. The employment shall be by contract only and involve no benefits which normally accrue to NATCA employees generally. The employment shall end concurrent with the end of Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CIV2007-016329 (Gilding V. Carr et. al.) and shall be for a sum to be reported by Jaburg & Wilk, P.C., Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, and Ward, Keenan & Barrett, PC, which represents the contract price for said expertise. Such payment shall be made to the defendants no later than September 30, 2008.

Alternatively, NATCA shall contract with Jaburg & Wilk, P.C., Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, and Ward, Keenan & Barrett, PC for legal counsel regarding union exposure and liability arising from Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CIV2007-016329 (Gilding V. Carr et. al.) Such contract shall be for a term concurrent with Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CIV2007-016329 (Gilding V. Carr et. al.) and for a fee equal to the past, present and future legal fees which accrue as a result of that case only. Such payment shall begin no later than September 30, 2008 and will also retroactively pay for legal fees incurred to date on the case.”

Kind of overwhelming for the group. Bandied about for awhile and eventually it failed. (PCT delegates voted with the majority.) But then a sympathetic bunch of guys got together and drafted up something for the delegates so they could take another try at lifting The Jack. Trying to do what's right by our brothers, here's what they came up with:

A legal fund shall be established for the purpose of collection of money and distribution of proceeds such that NATCA members, for whom NATCA is not directly responsible for their defense, may defend themselves from legal action. The fund shall be administered by NATCA’s Executive Board (NEB). The NEB shall move to begin to establish this fund no later than the close of business September 12, 2008.


Authors: Steve Wallace, ZMA; Andy Lewis, ROC; Andy Heifner, T75

It was debated, amended, and passed (PCT delegates voting in the minority) as this:

A legal fund shall be established for the purpose of collection of money and distribution of proceeds such that any active and/or retired member in good standing, for whom NATCA is not directly responsible for their defense, may defend themselves from legal action. The fund shall be administered by NATCA’s Executive Board (NEB). The NEB shall move to begin to establish this fund no later than the close of business September 12, 2008.

NATCA National shall make an initial donation to this fund of $300,000.

The first priority for the distribution of funds shall be given to Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CIV2007-018329 (Gilding V. Carr, et al).

Not exactly strong language but clear enough for anyone that was listening to what the delegates were saying. Maybe that's why Pat didn't chair the session when this matter was addressed. Barry Krasner did. The convention was in "Executive Session." No recording, no transcript, no intent. How convenient.

The convention adjourned with the delegates having plenty of doubt (rightly placed) that the NEB would do what was expected. Would they find the key to the short yellow bus that the delegates tried to hide? The delegates thought The Jack was in place. It collapsed. The will of the convention body was... for naught.

On October 1st the NEB met in executive session (so so secret) when it was heralded that the key was found. And they were now going to figure out who was going to drive the short yellow bus over John and Bob again. They could not reach consensus so it was decided, after framed questions to and pointed answers from Doctor I Dunno and other so-called "counsel" that every member of the NEB would have to take turns driving. Some would drive forward, others would shift into reverse and drive backward. So be it proclaimed that the union and it's coffers are saved on this first day of October two thousand and eight.

And to show our resolve and resolution and,, ahem, solidarity, we, the NATCA National Executive Board, offer this letter shamelessly if not sheepishly, to our immediate past President John Carr. Not signed by anybody- nice touch.

Message to all: We don't care what the delegates said, we don't care about any former/current/future NATCA President or any other representative that takes measures to right a wrong. And we definitely are not in solidarity or have any collective spirit because our actions to defy speak louder than words.

And the reply from Mr. Carr is here at his blog The Main Bang.

Quick on it's heels was a letter from the NEB to the membership explaining it's sickening rationale and how a union turns it's back on, how it finds loopholes to avoid protection of, how it gives the answer to a question to get the desired response, and gives new meaning to chilling effect to NATCA members and representatives here and now.

Read it and weep.

As many of you know, the NEB met in executive session at the National Office on October 1 in order to address two questions: the establishment of the legal defense fund that was passed by the delegates at the Miami Convention, and the requests for financial assistance from the new legal defense fund that were submitted by former President John Carr and former Western Pacific RVP Bob Marks immediately after the close of Convention. We accomplished the first of those projects but cannot proceed with the second for the following reasons:

In doing the research necessary to stand up the legal defense fund with the appropriate legal structure and bank accounts and to make the initial deposit of Union funds required by the Convention delegates, the General Counsel’s office consulted with NATCA’s outside labor counsel and outside auditors in order to ensure compliance with all relevant federal labor, tax, and benefit laws and regulations. As a result of these consultations and after due deliberation, it was determined that NATCA can establish a legal defense fund and deposit Union money into the legal defense fund, but cannot lawfully use Union money from the fund to assist in the legal defense of the former officers who had submitted applications for assistance.

The governing law is Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, a federal law whose sole function is to govern the internal operations of labor unions and which imposes a civil fiduciary duty on the officers of a union who have responsibility for handling and spending Union money. That civil fiduciary duty mandates that Union funds be spent for the benefit of the Union and its members.

Given the particular circumstances of the Arizona lawsuit in which both John and Bob are defendants, it was determined that a disbursement of Union money from the legal defense fund for the purpose of assisting with their legal defense would not be for the benefit of the Union – as neither was a Union officer nor acting at the behest of the Union at the time of the July 2007 blog that is the subject of the lawsuit – and would actually be to the detriment of the Union.

The legal problems created by the application for assistance by John and Bob were compounded on September 16, 2008 by the filing of a motion to add NATCA as a defendant in the lawsuit against John and Bob on the basis of a false allegation that the Union had authorized or ratified the publications in question. If NATCA is dragged into the lawsuit, its defenses will necessarily conflict with the defenses of the former officers, and the use of Union funds to finance a defense that conflicts with the Union’s defense is not permissible under Section 501(a) -- Union officers simply cannot authorize the disbursement of Union funds to litigate against the organization for which they are responsible.

On the other hand, there may be circumstances in the future under which the formers officers could receive assistance from the legal defense fund. First, both former officers might be eligible to receive reimbursement from the fund should the suit against them be determined to be without merit and/or if NATCA is unconditionally dismissed from the case thereby removing any possible conflict of defenses between the organization and the other defendants. Second, any contributions to the legal defense fund voluntarily submitted by individuals will be segregated from the Union funds and can be disbursed to the former officers.

I know this is a particularly frustrating outcome for the former officers and the Convention delegates who wanted to create a vehicle to assist them. NATCA and its officers, however, cannot operate outside the boundaries of federal labor law and reject the unanimous and emphatic counsel of the professionals it relies on to prevent the organization and its officers from committing acts which would place the Union and its officers in legal jeopardy.

Not one member of the NEB took pleasure in being unable to fulfill what many of the Convention delegates wanted to achieve. Our decision was purely and simply made to protect the organization.


NATCA NEB

And here we stand. Divided. Our collective spirit dwindled while the NEB fiddled.

Donate to the John Carr and Bob Marks Legal Defense Funds.
Go to this link.
$10, $20, $100? Whatever you can afford.
Help your brothers out today- it could be you tomorrow.
Cancel your NATCA PAC with this form and send that money to John and Bob.

Or if you'd rather not use PayPal then write a check payable to Kevin Sherwood and send to:

Bob Marks Legal Defense Fund

c/o Kevin Sherwood

3954 Tuller Ave

Culver City, CA 90230-4612

or

John Carr Legal Defense Fund

c/o Kevin Sherwood

3954 Tuller Ave

Culver City, CA 90230-4612

Request secure channel.

Here we are once again. In to yet another year of bidding annual leave. The so-called negotiations have produced--to no surprise--the same eff-ed up process as last year. Bid on your day off. Hey, didn't we just win a lawsuit over that? Yes. Don't worry about it we're told. Gotcha covered! Someway somehow we'll all be covered for this management offense. Gee, wonder how that little matter of compensation was negotiated (away)?

Boy oh boy, negotiations are sure easy when you negotiate from management's side. Who would want to get all bogged down in coming up with a better leave bidding process when there are so many more important things to get done in a day. Not so fast! We did gain something. Access to someone's unsecured Comcast.net personal website to show us who bid what. Hey that's real neat. (Not.) What good reason is there not to use the WebSchedule feature called 'Leave Calendar'? It's on a secured (such as any of 'em are) server rather someone's personal Comcast account. Oh, that must have been another element of the negotiations that just happened to be publicized a couple days ago in a letter to the workers in the pre-duty binder. Several days after bidding started. Hmmm, leads us to believe that maybe this wasn't part of the deal. Ah, who cares. Minor detail. Like everything around here- if it doesn't affect us (negotiators) we don't care.

Does any of this mean squat to the vast majority of PCT controllers? For the TPCAU crew, yes it does. (And the days off bidding was even a bigger snafu. Once the dust settles on that one we'll have a report in it.)

Meanwhile, as the crash of Trooper 2 is swept off the front page of the newspaper by other stories the FAA gets another pass (for now) because the FacRep let another opportunity to publicize how the FAA failed it's air traffic controllers go by the wayside. Unfortunately, crashes are the opportunity a FacRep has--in this case failed to take--to get our issues into the mainstream media.

Anyone starting to wonder what you get for your dues money? We'll have more on that probably tomorrow.

Who cares now?

We've said it before and we're saying it again: The motto of this agency is "We don't care 'til they crash."

Well it happened. Sunday morning. Maryland State Police helicopter Trooper 2 crashed on approach to Andrews Air Force Base. Four dead. Who cares?

Our newest writer Private Parts covered the business of the inhibiting MSAW (minimum safe altitude alarm) at Potomac TRACON in the article The failed culture. So now what? Do the people in control of this agency care now? Or will that only happen when someone of greater authority tells them to?

The delay in taking action to change the air traffic control procedures to assign beacon codes to allow for MSAW only demonstrates that it is more important to save face than save lives. It is really something that the people in control of this agency take such a callous attitude by delaying the simple measure that could have given the pilot of Trooper 2 a few extra seconds to save himself and the other three that perished.

Media reports that the controller at Andrews wasn't certified to do an ASR approach isn't anything new to controllers at Potomac TRACON. ASR approaches are more often than not denied during the daytime when Andrews Tower is presumably staffed to the FAA's standards. (You know, the tired old line from the FAA: Right people at the right place at the right time. Right.) So let's not allow the FAA to lay claim on that as being a contributing factor to this crash. If anything, this points to FAA's failed air traffic controller staffing standards.

And a lot of attention will be focused on the TRACON controller. Phraseology. What the controller said. How the controller said it. When the controller said it. Did the controller say it properly. Important stuff. Without question. But did it have anything to do with the crash? Doubt it. But just watch how the FAA will use this piece to save face over their failures (think, MSAW.)

This business of inhibiting MSAW is something the FAA learned a long time ago. And obviously forgotten. August 6, 1997, 1:42AM. Korean Air flight 801 impacts terrain on final approach to Guam International Airport runway 6L. 228 dead. Minimum Safe Altitude Warning System inhibited by FAA due to nuisance warnings. From the NTSB's final report. Finding #22. The Federal Aviation Administration's quality assurance for the minimum safe altitude warning system was inadequate, and the agency's intentional inhibition of that system contributed to the flight 801 accident.

The same words from the KAL801 NTSB's final report will be in the Trooper 2 accident report. Will the FAA wait until then to fix it? Why wait if the problem is known RIGHT NOW?

The failed culture.

Around 12:30 this morning (September 28, 2008) a Maryland State Police helicopter, known by it's radiotelephony of "Trooper 2", crashed into a wooded area north of Andrews Air Force Base. This after it was forced to abort it's medevac flight to the Prince Georges County Hospital Center with two victims of a traffic accident and attempting an ILS approach to Andrews AFB in foggy weather. The helicopter was worked by a controller at Potomac TRACON immediately before the mishap.

Dead are (pictured from left to right) pilot and retired MSP Corporal Stephen Bunker, MSP Trooper First Class Mickey Lippy, Waldorf Volunteer Fire Department Emergency Medical Technician Tanya Mallard, and Ashley Younger, the 18-year-old victim of the traffic accident.

Our sympathies go out to all affected by the loss of these people.

Wondering what, if anything, could have prevented this accident I looked back through the past writings on our blog. Not surprising, an overriding theme to much of what my fellow writers have tried to put into words is that the agency managers at Potomac TRACON seem to have minimal concern, at best, about addressing safety issues raised by air traffic controllers. A rule rather than the exception is for agency managers to simply respond to air traffic controllers that it is a "management right" to correct perceived safety issues and they choose to exercise their "right" by doing nothing. Maybe after today they'll think differently.

Air traffic controllers that work along with the pilots that fly around the Washington, DC, area have been affected by restricted airspace that was put in place in after the attacks of 9/11. This airspace is known as the ADIZ, short for Air Defense Identification Zone, and a smaller section of airspace that surrounds Washington, DC, called the FRZ, which is short for 'Flight Restricted Zone. Here is a link to the the FAA's guide and rules for flying in the ADIZ/FRZ.

Over the years changes have been made to the size of the ADIZ/FRZ to accomodate the concerns of pilots and government security officials alike. Of the many rules for flying in the DC area is one that permits law enforcement helicopters, such as Trooper 2, to fly with minimal restrictions with the only requirement being that they communicate by radio with air traffic controllers when in the ADIZ/FRZ and squawk a pre-assigned transponder code that provides air traffic controllers with the aircraft's identity. Herein lies the problem and what may have prevented the crash of Trooper 2. I'll get to more of that later.

Let's first go back to July 26, 2007. This date is when the FAA's Administrator Marion Blakey and Deputy Administrator Robert Sturgell simultaneously announced the modification to the dimensions of the ADIZ/FRZ and the creation of new air traffic controller work stations at Potomac TRACON. She said this:

“Our aim is to balance vigilance with new measures that make it easier to track who belongs in this airspace and who does not.

The new measures will make it easier to track authorized flights and identify any aircraft that is not complying with the rules.

Meanwhile, commonsense modifications to the shape of the restricted area and new, established procedures for certain flight operations are expected to reduce the number of unintentional violations on the outer edges of the ADIZ.

The FAA is also adding four new positions at the Potomac TRACON, the facility that supports safety and security procedures in the ADIZ."

He said this:

"What’s more, it raises security to an even higher level because we’re adding four radar positions in Potomac. The sole function of these positions is to keep constant watch over the Washington airspace 24/7.

Let me just say that what we’re doing here in no way means we’re letting our guard down. The airspace above Washington will continue to be the most closely watched airspace in the world.

The aim now is to balance that vigilance with new measures that improve safety by making it easier for pilots to navigate and improve security by making it easier to track who belongs up there and who doesn’t."

And to emphasize to air traffic controllers just how vital and important this somewhat redefined task of watching the skies around Washington, DC, is, Potomac TRACON Air Traffic Manager Barbara Cogliandro wrote this:

"It is imperative that those individuals operating the ADIZ positions are fully aware of their responsibilities and the seriousness of the job at hand. All personnel have been briefed on the appropriate Orders and Notams. Scrutinizing of Potomac by many outside entities will continue. We must insure we do our part to support these national defense intitiatives."

Over and over and over air traffic controllers have been told by agency managers how important and vital and serious and how they must do their part in the name of national security and maintain heightened awareness while doing their job. So-called 'national security efforts' have become more important than anything else at Potomac TRACON.

The motto of the air traffic controllers union is 'Safety Above All.' However, agency managers at Potomac TRACON have succeeded in eroding this work ethic--safety above all--in two ways. First, by the repeated calls for vigilance in support of national security efforts. I'm certain that all air traffic controllers are aware of the responsibility that their job entails without reminders from agency managers who are so far removed from the actual business of air traffic control that their words are taken with a grain of salt. The call for "vigilance" is like the boy crying wolf one too many times.

Second, are the agency managers at Potomac TRACON who defiantly choose to ignore the safety issues raised by air traffic controllers. The agency managers at Potomac TRACON have created a culture where most controllers and supervisors will just come to work, do the absolute minimum to get their job done, and go home.

The crash of Trooper 2 brings all of this to light.

I need to give a small bit of technical info first. Bear with me. About the transponder code that Trooper 2 was squawking. The discrete beacon code that was utilized by Trooper 2 did not allow for MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE WARNING. Defined in the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary as: A function of the ARTS III computer that aids the controller by alerting him/her when a tracked Mode C equipped aircraft is below or is predicted by the computer to go below a predetermined minimum safe altitude.

This lack of MSAW processing for Trooper 2 and all other frequent flyers in the ADIZ/FRZ is by design. Since the vast majority of these aircraft are law enforcement and military helicopters flying at low altitudes in VFR (visual flight rule) conditions the resulting low altitude alarms at air traffic controller work stations would be non-stop if this MSAW processing were enabled.

Here's another piece to this puzzle and it is a story that was relayed to another one of our writers last week. It lends itself to what I am writing about today. An air traffic controller was called on the radio by a Coast Guard helicopter requesting an instrument approach to Andrews AFB. The Coast Guard helicopter, similar to Trooper 2, was squawking a pre-assigned discrete beacon code. To enable MSAW processing the controller assigned the helicopter a different beacon code. Inexplicably, the pilot refused to change his beacon code. Nonetheless, the controller cleared the Coast Guard helicopter for the instrument approach without the added safety feature of MSAW. As usually is the case, the flight was uneventful.

A bit later the controller got a break from his work station and advised the on-duty supervisor, Colleen Paton, about what had transpired. She said (paraphrased), "you should not change their code." The controller asked Ms. Paton if she could refer him to the written rule to support her statement. Her curt reply was that she didn't need to show him anything. She could not be more wrong. The attitude of Ms. Paton, a new supervisor I might add, serves as the prime example of the management team at Potomac TRACON. They are in control.

Trooper 2 was not given a beacon code to allow for MSAW processing. Why? Because, just like Ms. Paton said, controllers have been directed to not change the pre-assigned beacon code of ADIZ/FRZ frequent flyers (such as Trooper 2.)

The frequent and routine flights by law enforcement and military helicopters in the ADIZ/FRZ in VFR conditions, combined with the too-often calls for "heightened awareness" of national security issues, and the mistaken direction to not change pre-assigned beacon codes has led controllers down a path of misapplication of a basic air traffic control rule.

From the FAA's Air Traffic Control Handbook. 5-2-9. VFR CODE ASSIGNMENTS c. When an aircraft changes from VFR to IFR, the controller shall assign a beacon code to Mode C equipped aircraft that will allow MSAW alarms.

This rule is unambiguous. Its application could have been the link to break the chain of events that lead to the crash of Trooper 2. The blame lies squarely on the agency managers who have acted in direct opposition to the controller's rule of 'safety above all' and who have fostered a culture of complacency due to their mistaken interpretation of some and outright ignorance of other air traffic control rules that are in place for one reason: TO PREVENT A COLLISION.

September 28, 2008
Is this the cost of running the FAA like a business?
Apparently.
Could this accident have been prevented had the FAA put safety above all?
Quite possibly.

January 30, 2007: The FAA is focused on operating like a business, using the best practices from the private sector to operate more efficiently and effectively.

For the vets. No thanks to the FAA.

We don't mean to stick a stick in their eye when to the unwitting it appears the FAA is trying to do the right thing (for a change) but they really must be the top dolt of federal employers.  Case in point is a recent memo (thanks to our readers for sending this to us) from the BTGD crew alerting us veteran workers (air traffic controllers) to a benefit that the very same employer tried--unsuccessfully--to prevent us from obtaining. 

Thanks to the efforts of Scott Conde, ZOA FacRep, we are now--presumably without obstruction from our employer--able to apply for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.  The "MGIB" provides up to 36 months of education benefits to eligible veterans for, in our case, on the job training as an air traffic controller.  Read this. 

Over two years ago the FAA, through their Office of General Counsel, initially determined that our application to this benefit "... (It) is illegal as it constitutes a conflict of interest, and constitutes dual compensation. Further, there shall be no further processing of applications for this benefit in the future."  Is that so?  Well, that "ruling" set the wheels in motion for Scott to make it happen for us veterans.  Failing to do the right thing when someone is watching--contrary to what the FAA claims in their club motto or whatever the hell they print on the back of the Administrator's Factbook-- the FAA has changed their tune.  Not without pressure however.  Read this. 

The memo below from the BTGD crew is a hoot.  "The FAA is doing all that it can to speed up the approval process..."  Gee, and we're so thankful!  And especially since it was all they could do to keep us from what we are entitled to.  Jerks.  (If the FAA or someone else's server has blocked you click here for a PDF.)

VAclaims - Upload a Document to Scribd

 Fortunately, the FAA's involvement in your application for this benefit is limited.  Read the links, make your application, and remember who fought for this and who fought against it.

Wasteful spending.

The current animosity in the world of ATC and the FAA vs. NATCA is rooted on the most simple level in MONEY. The IWR were put in place in order to save millions of dollars each year. The issue with attacking the lively hood of controllers and their families by screwing with their pocketbooks is the agency needs to make a conscious effort to reduce wasteful spending. This point finds no greater example than that of our two newly installed 60" Pioneer Plasma TV's. A few responses I received today when expressing my discontent involved "well its the end of the fiscal year and the budget is use it or lose it" Seriously? We needed two $5500 top of the line Pioneer Plasma's to serve as additional TMU boards? The multiple TMU projection screens weren't enough? Here is the link to our friendly electronics store and the TV if your interested:

http://www.plasmaconcepts.com/plasma-tv-store/pioneer-pdp-6020fd/PD1031.html

I understand the use it or lose it budget plan, many places apply it to their own budgets. It however is the worst budget rule to speak of. If the Agency truly wants to reduce the bottom line thats fine on many levels....however this is blatant wasteful spending and it should upset everyone.

A point was brought up about this time last year and the fancy new office furniture that was purchased for the back office. Same deal, what happened to making capital improvements and fixing things when they break. A better way to spend that $11,000 we just wasted would have been to fix the door in the lunch room or to buy soap for the empty soap dispensers in the bathrooms. Maybe you could replace the facilities BBQ grill since it hasn't worked since the Pilot Open House over the spring. Maybe you could subsidize Billy B and the Cafeteria so he could stay open on the weekends. Oh wait, you don't work weekends so what do you care?

I feel that this blatant ignorance for financial responsibility is disrespectful to your workforce, at least those of you in positions of decision making are consistent. Consistently Worthless.

Fer real? Fer sure!

Here's a few must see videos. If this doesn't give you pause to reconsider your vote for the Republican ticket then, well, you must be deaf.  And if you are deaf go to this link to read the transcript of the video.  These Palin videos are in our category of humor but for the rest of the nation she should be placed in the horror category.



And another short clip.



And part 2 of the grilling Couric interview.



Is she a piece of work or what?  Vote for her, and oh yeah, him too, uh, McCain, you're an idiot.

And in the next runner-up slot we have the 2007 Miss Teen South Carolina. What an uncanny resemblance to the Governor.

And we'll close with this video. Paris for President! She is hot! 

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

 Back to reality. Vote your paycheck and your brain.  Vote Obama/Biden. 

Another 56 days.

Yep, as we predicted. Today's article wrote itself (sorta) when we wrote on August 28th what we should have said today because of our boo-boo on aviation chart publication dates when we wrote it originally. Huh, you say? Today, September 25th, is the start of another 56 day cycle and the publication of aviation charts used by pilots and controllers. And it is another 56 days where the flawed procedures implemented under the wavering eyes of the support managers are allowed to persist.

So we say to you: Thanks for another 56 days of nothing. Thanks for demonstrating your incompetence and inability to fix what you broke. Thanks for showing (still) that you could care less about lessening workloads of the workers (air traffic controllers.) And the managers responsible for this farce were promoted. Figures.

Here's the link to the newest publications of the charts that we refer to. (Note the 'C' flag on a couple of 'em. Ignore it, because it didn't change anything that affects planes or controllers.)

Oh, and to make it simple here's what we erroneously wrote back on August 28th. Nothing has changed. Controllers are still working around the flawed procedures. Managers still have no concern about fixing it.

===

56 days.

Another fifty-six days has gone by. 56? What's that have to do with the price of a controller slot at Tampa? Nothing. But it is the number of days between publishing dates for terminal procedures publications. And today, August 28, is the publication of another set of new, improved, and existing procedures used by pilots and controllers.

But, oh. Imagine our surprise. The flawed procedures that were put in place at PCT so long ago by the crack team behind the glass door are still in place. Those would be the...

• WZRRD2 STAR. Routes non-RNAV arrival aircraft head-on into departure aircraft. NOTAM (below) attempted to 'fix' the problem but results in aircraft entering PCT airspace without a route. (Yes, you read that correctly.)
  
• ELDEE3 STAR. Contains numerous step-down altitudes that pilots repeatedly claim they can't comply with.
  
• TERPZ1 DP. Routes aircraft to a point on the boundary between PCT/ZDC as they climb through a ZDC sector without coordination.
  

This topic of flawed procedures is something that we've written about many times since we started this blog. If you'd like to follow along or refresh your memory (and save us from re-writing it) then go here, here, and here.


The quick fix for the masters without minds was to put out a Notice To Airmen (see below) modifying two of these flawed procedures. These NOTAMs add to increased frequency congestion (which is, of course, no concern to the BTGD crew since it doesn't affect them one iota) with pilots wondering, then asking, the controller whether the new charted procedure (which is really not new) supersedes the NOTAM? (Which is doesn't.)

NOTAM Data Current as of : Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:21:00 GMT


DCA RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL


!UAR 06/001 (KDCA A0209/08) DCA AIRSPACE ELDEE THREE ARRIVAL... CHANGE
CROSSING RESTRICTION AT PUGEE TO AT OR ABOVE 12,000. CROSS POOCH AT
11000. DELETE CROSSING RESTRICTION AT CAPSS. CHANGE CROSSING
RESTRICTION AT WZRRD TO AT OR ABOVE 10,000. DELETE CROSSING RESTRICTION
AT DARIC. CROSS ELDEE AT 8000, AND IF LANDING RUNWAY 19 AT REAGAN
NATIONAL, CROSS ELDEE AT 8000 AND 210 KTS.


!UAR 03/011 (KDCA A0074/08) DCA AIRSPACE WZRRD TWO ARRIVAL: SHAAR
TRANSITION: ROUTE FROM DRUZZ INT TO WZRRD INT NOT AUTHORIZED. AFTER
DRUZZ INT EXPECT RADAR VECTORS TO AML VORTAC.

And, since PCT controllers haven't been notified of the new chart publications that are really the same as the old ones and haven't been advised that the NOTAM, even though it is older than the new publication, does (or does it not?) supersede the chart they are left to their own discretion on what is right. No problem. Controllers everyday work around these flawed procedures and many more. This usually means aircraft are vectored off the procedures which saves the controller from having to explain the stupidity behind them over the radio to the pilot. Even though the so-called benefits of RNAV procedures (touted by the FAA in this PR spin 'Fact Sheet') are thrown out the window.

But hey, what does that matter? The FAA management hasn't taken the time or effort to explain the so-called benefits of RNAV procedures to the workers. And since they won't fix what they've messed up why should controllers do anything other than run the planes however they need to in order to ensure separation and get the planes out of their sector ASAP? This surely can't be part of the safety culture the agency is trying to hard to pass off on anyone who'll listen.

We'll place our bets that another 56 days will pass and nothing will change. Why should it? The goal was accomplished as far as the BTGD crew is concerned. The procedures were published.

What? Controllers are taking airplanes off the procedures? Well, umm. We, uhh,, we don't really know why they do a lot of the things they do. But if we tell 'em to do what we put in these charts then we'll get blamed if something goes wrong. And that would defeat our purpose of non-accountability.

Hmmm, wonder how that ATSAP program is going to work at PCT?

===

We would love nothing more than for us to be proved wrong and get these problems fixed. November 20, 2008 is the start of the next 56 day cycle. Can the BTGD crew get it done? We'll see. (Right.) And if they don't then our November 20th article will be just as easy as today's. We can keep running the August 28th blog every 56 days!

Did you wash your hands?

Thanks to one of our readers for sending this document over to us. It had only one day of shelf life,,, that is until we got a hold of it! It's just a small story but too stupid to let it pass. (If for whatever reason you can't see the document below--like because it's blocked on some FAA servers--click here for a PDF of it.)

Surprise visit by the GAO to PCT? Oh puhleaze! And they're going to see how prepared we are for the pandemic flu? Kidding, right? The group running this place is like the The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight but think they are The Rifleman.

So what would be the purpose of a no notice visit by the GAO? Uh, none. That is, we presume it to be no notice since the memo was dated one day before the visit. Assess our preparedness? Oh, so that's why there are hand sanitizer dispensers mounted on the wall outside the bathroom near the control room. Gee, that oughta stop the scourge of pandemic influenza. (Yeah, were not grateful for anything are we?)

Hmmm, wonder if anyone ever thought about a way to sanitize the keyboards that all of the workers (air traffic controllers) share, and touh, and hack on, all day long? Nah.

Here's a draft document of some plan the DOT has crafted to combat pandemic influenza. Wow! Some tall orders. Do we have to say it? No, but. There is no way that the leaders of this agency and the managers of this facility would know how to even begin to protect anyone or anything from pandemic influenza. Hand sanitizers? We didn't really notice when those things were installed. Was it before or after September 9th? Anyone know? (Email us if you do.)

Sure, sure. Pandemic flu is a serious thing. But that would be the last thing I would expect this agency to be on top of. I'll take my chances. Oh, but while you're at all this preparedness stuff. Could someone please check the soap dispensers in the lobby men's bathroom? Most of 'em don't work. Thanks.

Always right.

Again (ugh), more on RNAV procedures. This offering is prompted by a recent article at TMB on how the FAA wants controllers to consider the poor poor pitiful airlines in the decision making process to keep 'em apart from one another and save 'em money at the same time. Read it there and/or keep reading here for the TPCAU perspective.

The mixed signals this agency transmits to it's workers (air traffic controllers) has a lot to do with why the workers (air traffic controllers) laugh out loud when they read things like this. This missive from the HQ PR spin machine is rich. Doesn't the FAA have congressional liaisons? (Yes.) Don't they watch the news? No? Well we do and so should you. Watch this (it's short.)

First of all, it shouldn't take an act of Congress to get the FAA to stop referring to the airlines as 'customers.' And with the shellacking that the FAA took at the April 3rd, '08, House Transportation Committee hearing (it's a long video, but it's good) on the FAA's failed safety and inspection oversight program they, or at least the FAA's congressional liaisons should have spread the word that airlines are not customers. Or if you don't have time to watch the video (understandable!) then read this and this.

Well, an act of Congress is what it takes, so it appears, for the FAA to knock off the "customer service" lingo. The Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 (HR 6493) passed the House in July and awaits--like so many other pressing issues--action in the Senate. (Good luck with that!) Among other things, this act of Congress states that "...the FAA’s safety mandate is compromised by its “Customer Service Initiative”, and, "...the FAA (to) amend its documents to clarify that the airlines are not customers, that the traveling public is the agency’s only “customer...”.

Why didn't Megan Rosia (pictured), FAA Assistant Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs, (bio here) pass the word down the line that it's time to ipnay the ustomercay ervicesay nonsense? Probably could have made some much needed brownie points with the congressmen that they're hoping on to confirm Sturgell as Administrator. Get ahead of 'em. Show 'em that we're listening. Trying to do the right thing. Yeah, sure.

Okay, so what were we talking about again? Oh, customer service. Well, this message probably didn't filter down to the workers (air traffic controllers)--as hoped for by the PR spin machine-- but did you know that the airlines are losing some major cabbage? And, it's our desire for you--servicers of the customer-- to save them some scratch as you keep 'em apart. Have you read the memo yet? No? Okay then. Here's a couple of key points that the agency would like for you to keep in mind. Something for air traffic controllers to think about to take their mind off the extreme focus on safety. (Their words- not ours.)

• They (the airlines) want to be partners in the decision making process- especially in issues that affect their bottom line. [Oh. Like "should I take that vector to avoid colliding with that 747?" Now that's something that'll affect the bottom line for sure. Come to think of it, it's probably best to leave the decision making to the air traffic controllers and let the pilots just listen up and do their flying thing.]
• ...delays exceed(ing) 3 minutes on any particular flight, we have erased any chance of profit for our customer, and now have started to incur additional expenses. [Now this is where the mixed signals come in.]

So while the FAA would like for the workers (air traffic controllers) to take on a "customer service" role--even though Congress says don't--they (the FAA that is) have put in place air traffic control procedures throughout the Washington, DC, area that--according to estimates from the Air Transport Association-- have cost the airlines a tidy sum of cash. Here's a comparison of just a couple of the recent changes:

Arrival from the west to DCA Runway19 (ELDEE3 STAR): Adds six miles to the old procedure.

Arrival from the northeast to DCA Runway 19 (CLIPR & SKILS STARs): Adds five miles to the old procedure.

Departure from IAD to routes from LDN VOR: Adds three miles to the old procedure.

Departure from IAD to routes via J149: Adds five miles to the old procedure.

These are but just a sampling of what the FAA has done for the customer. Increased their flying distance. (Never mind the safety aspects. All which have been chronicled in previous articles here at TPCAU.) But why? To respond to the customer's--there's that word again--request for RNAV routes. So, do they get what they asked for? Yes. But must it be at additional flying miles? No. Does anyone really care? Doubt it. As long as the managers got their cash award for a job well done. Whether it really was or not. It wasn't. And we here at TPCAU don't really give two cents about it either except that it gave us another screwy thing to write about.

Some air traffic controllers are convinced that taking aircraft off the RNAV routes (thereby reducing flying miles while increasing controller and cockpit workload) is the right thing to do. Hey, this here memo from the PR machine vindicates it. Doesn't it? Well, no. Lest not forget that air traffic control is a constant application of rules. Here's another one of those mixed signals that should rise above the rest. The Air Traffic Control Handbook.

5-6-1. APPLICATION

Vector aircraft:

a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.

Pretty simple. Keep the airplanes on the route.

If the FAA wants the workers (air traffic controllers) to do something different then they should change the rule. Because when the fan starts taking on sh*t and an air traffic controller has deviated from this rule trying to do what some external force that doesn't consider safety as important as all else and something bad happens then guess what? You're wrong and the customer, is, well, always right.

That signal should be loud and clear.

But seriously folks.

Another two cents on the new rule of losing seniority upon taking a sup job after June 6, '06.... While some of us here are troubled by the retroactive penalty of this rule I wonder why there wasn't greater action taken by the membership before the convention and by some of the delegates at the convention to make the rule effective the day the rule was adopted. 

The proposed amendment (the rule) was in green booklet mailed home to every NATCA member in late April or May, I think it was.  So this wasn't any, or it shouldn't have been, any great surprise to anyone.  My guess is that few members, if any, at PCT who had an issue with the proposal brought it up with their delegate (the Fac Rep a