Clifton Rushing's last day at Newark Tower

We had a positive development at Newark Air Traffic Control Tower this month. December 14th, 2010 was Front Line Manager - Clifton Rushing's last day of work at EWR. For those of you who don't know the backstory, I'll give a very short explanation.

On February 2, 2008 Clifton Rushing verbally attacked me while I was controlling aircraft at Newark. Yes, that's right - WHILE I WAS WORKING LIVE TRAFFIC. Yes, there are people on those airplanes. Maybe even you, your friends or your family. His actions were disruptive to the operation and could have caused an accident.

What was FLM Rushing so bent about?? He didn't like the fact that the pilots were confused by a new procedure and they had the gall to ask me some questions. And the worst part of it all......I actually answered them!! Oh.my.God! I was doing my job --- too well.

So the marbles in FLM Rushing's head bounced around a bit and he chose to confront me while I was working airplanes. Do you know what was his solution to the pilots' questions and the dangerously confusing procedure? HE TOLD ME NOT TO ANSWER THE PILOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a dipsh*t...Are you F'n serious....DON'T ANSWER THEM???????

And this jackass is a SUPERVISOR in the Federal Aviation Administration. The agency tasked with protecting your life when flying!!!

Anyway, this idiot gives me a reprimand for answering questions of the pilots who don't know what the hell they're supposed to do when they takeoff from Newark Airport because of some F'd up procedure put together by a bunch of sycophant washed-out controller wannabes sitting in cubicles somewhere.

A year later, a federal administrative judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board rules that the reprimand was in VIOLATION OF THE - WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. The judge ruled that FLM Rushing was complicit in a reprisal action against the appellant (me). Clifton's actions constituted a Prohibited Personnel Practice.

FAA's own regulations state that anyone committing a PPP is subject to 30-day suspension to removal from service for a first offense and a second offense is simply removal. Well, this was the first of two PPP's that FLM Rushing committed in a period of 5 months and against the same appellant (me).

Yet, he is still gainfully employed by the FAA and getting paid over $150,000 a year plus benefits and bonuses. This guy, who would rather see a pilot run his plane into a building than answer his question, is collecting a nice, fat paycheck on the taxpayer's dime. If you want to cut the federal budget - start here!

It took almost 2 years to get to the point of this blog post, but after much complaining on my part to the highest levels of FAA administration, FLM Rushing was finally transferred out of Newark Tower. At least I don't have to look at his ugly face anymore. I did everything possible not to work with him in the control tower. It cost me money and leave time to stay away from him. I'm still waiting to get that back.

I'm sure the FAA transferred him with a paid move of $27,000 cash and probably gave him a promotion to go along with it. All these great perks for a guy who is a hazard to any airport he works at. If anyone finds him, please drop me a line. I need to warn the flying public about this guy.

OK FAA - IT'S TIME TO MAN UP AND FIRE THIS GUY. YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND THE RULINGS. IF I WOULD HAVE DONE THIS, I'D BE WORKING AT 7-11 MAKING MINIMUM WAGE.

FIRE CLIFTON RUSHING. YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO.

Love Ray.....................................

Here's where Ed Masterson is now. He got a promotion for VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW

Ed Masterson (HE MAKES OVER $180,000 plus benefits and bonuses)

Functional Job Title: Manager, System Efficiency (HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT REAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL)
Service Unit: System Operations
Directorate:
Division: System Operations ATCSCC Office

Office Phone: 703-904-4421 (PLEASE CALL HIM - LET HIM KNOW HE SHOULD BE FIRED)
Fax:

Physical Address: Mail Address: (SEND HIM A LETTER - ASK HIM WHY HE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW)

ATCSCC ATCSCC
13600 EDS Dr. 13600 EDS Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
Room Number: AT Room Number:
Desk Location: Mail Stop:


OK FAA - IT'S TIME TO FIRE ED MASTERSON for VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW - the Whistleblower Protection Act. Your own regulations say you must FIRE ED MASTERSON.

November 27, 2009 CNN - Newark runway risks concern feds

Ed Masterson denied there were problems with these procedures. On January 22nd, 2009 a federal administrative judge determined that Ed Masterson VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW - The Whistleblower Protection Act by retaliating against Ray Adams (me) for his disclosure of unsafe air traffic procedures at Newark Airport. This CNN story details just one of those problematic procedures. For his VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW - The Whistleblower Protection Act, Ed Masterson received a PROMOTION from the FAA. Let's go FAA, get with the program and remove Ed Masterson from the Federal Aviation Administration as is your authority under the law. Your own regulations indicate you should fire him. What's the holdup???

Newark runway risks concern feds:

(CNN) -- Federal investigators are concerned a potential danger persists because of the simultaneous use of intersecting runways at Newark Liberty International Airport, one of the nation's busiest and a gateway to the New York metro area.

The alert comes after repeated instances in which planes above the Newark airport flew too close to each other in violation of safety standards. There were four such instances last year and at least four this year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general.

In one case, on January 16, 2008, two Continental planes -- a Boeing B-737 and an Embraer 145 -- missed each other by 600 feet, according to a DOT inspector general's report.

"That was very scary. I was there for that one personally in the control tower, and it scared the heck out of everybody up there," said Ray Adams, a Newark air traffic controller.

Potential danger arises when approaching planes need to abort their landings, which happens about every 700 flights at Newark, according to a Federal Aviation Administration analysis.

In what the FAA calls "go-arounds," the diverted plane approaching Newark has to make a sharp right turn through the flight path of planes landing and taking off from an intersecting runway, allowing little margin for error.

"There was a distinct possibility that we could have had a collision with these operations," Adams said.

READ THE REST OF THE STORY:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/11/27/nj.runway.danger/index.html

An explanation of why FAA should remove Ed Masterson from service with the Federal Aviation Administration

On December 22, 2009 Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge JoAnn M. Ruggiero ruled that Mr. Raymond Adams, an air traffic controller at Newark Airport, was illegally issued a reprimand by the Agency on February 22, 2008. The Judge determined that the discipline imposed on Mr. Adams was motivated by his disclosure of unsafe air traffic procedures at Newark Liberty Airport. This reprisal for whistle blowing activity is prohibited by 5 C.F.R. 2302(b)(8) and is considered a “Prohibited Personnel Practice”. The reprimand was ordered cancelled as of its effective date and per MSPB regulation 5 C.F.R. 7701(e)(1), the Judge’s initial decision became final on January 26, 2010 and is not subject to further appeal.

Judge Ruggiero’s reasoning of her decision clearly implicates Air Traffic Manager, Mr. Edward Masterson as the primary actor in the commission of the Prohibited Personnel Practice. In the Judge’s decision, she stated, inter alia, that Mr. Edward Masterson was aware of the appellant’s disclosures to Congress and the media stories regarding the unsafe procedures, and that he attended the February 2008 meeting in Representative Chris Smith’s office where the procedures were discussed. She also stated that Mr. Adams’ disclosures were “a thorn in Mr. Masterson’s side” and Mr. Masterson gave “advice” to Mr. Rushing, the appellant’s immediate supervisor that Mr. Adams would have to be “dealt with”.

Due to his extensive experience in FAA facility management, it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Masterson was well aware of the law and FAA regulation prohibiting reprisals against employees for protected disclosures. Mr. Masterson was previously the Assistant Air Traffic Manager at Philadelphia Air Traffic Control Tower and held regional management positions in FAA. It appears Mr. Masterson committed this illegal action willfully and even when put on notice that his actions constituted retaliation, he refused to reconsider.

5 C.F.R. 1221(f) dictates the action MSPB will take upon the initial decision becoming final. The relevant portion of the Statute reads:

5 CFR 1221(f)

(1) A final order or decision shall be rendered by the Board as soon as practicable after the commencement of any proceeding under this section.

(2) A decision to terminate an investigation under subchapter II may not be considered in any action or other proceeding under this section.

(3) If, based on evidence presented to it under this section, the Merit Systems Protection Board determines that there is reason to believe that a current employee may have committed a prohibited personnel practice, the Board shall refer the matter to the Special Counsel to investigate and take appropriate action under section1215. (Emphasis added)

Section 1215 dictates the procedures for the Special Counsel to follow to initiate a disciplinary action against an employee. Specifically Section 1215(a)(3) indicates the penalties that may be imposed. These penalties include removal, debarment from service for up to five (5) years, suspension, reprimand and assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1100.00.

According to its website www.osc.gov, “The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. Our basic authorities come from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).” It also states “OSC’s primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employee`s and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing.” (Emphasis added)

Although the OSC has the primary responsibility for initiating disciplinary action against employees committing Prohibited Personnel Practices, the OSC may authorize the Agency to discipline the offending employee itself.

According to the FAA’s Human Resources Operating Instructions (effective July 1, 2008), Table of Penalties #40, the penalty for a first offense of committing a Prohibited Personnel Practice listed in the Personnel Management System (PMS), Introduction, Paragraph VII is a 30-day suspension to removal. In #41 of the same table, the penalty for retaliation against an alleged whistleblower is to be determined by the Office of Special Counsel. The act of retaliation against a whistleblower is a Prohibited Personnel Practice (5 CFR 2302(b)(8)).

Since the Agency (i.e. FAA) may be authorized to discipline the offending employee for the Prohibited Personnel Practice, it should immediately contact the OSC and initiate action to remove Mr. Edward Masterson from his service with the Agency. Mr. Masterson’s actions placed many thousands of lives in jeopardy and embarrassed the Agency on multiple occasions in the eyes of the Congress and the Public. He also removed Mr. Adams from the air traffic facility for over a year on administrative leave, costing the Agency over $150,000. Mr. Adams’ victory in front of the MSPB will also cost the Agency tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. Mr. Masterson should further have all bonuses and promotions gained since 2008 revoked and subsequently repaid to the Agency.

In addition to Mr. Masterson’s involvement, the Front Line Manager, Clifton Rushing was complicit in the commission of the Prohibited Personnel Practice. Mr. Rushing was the instigator of the conflicts leading up to the PPP and his actions disrupted the air traffic operation at Newark Airport on two separate occasions endangering the passengers and causing traumatic injury to Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams’ injury was confirmed by a medical professional and upheld by the Department of Labor, even over the objections of Mr. Masterson. Mr. Rushing’s actions cost the Agency tens of thousands of dollars and a great loss of productivity. The Agency has the authority to discipline Mr. Rushing for his actions. Mr. Rushing should be demoted from his position of Front Line Manager back to an Air Traffic Control Specialist and he should be reassigned to another facility. He should also have his pay reduced to its pre-promotion level. Mr. Rushing’s presence at Newark Tower continues to be an unwarranted source of tension for Mr. Adams.

In the FAA’s own Manager’s Guide to Discipline, under the heading “Provide Positive Leadership and Serve as a Role Model” it is stated that managers are held to a higher standard of behavior than the employees they supervise. It clearly reads, “Simply stated, with all things being equal, a manager would receive a greater “penalty” for his/her failure to comply with a workplace rule than a subordinate would.” For their unprofessional and illegal conduct, both of these managers should receive penalties on the high end of the suggested range.

Dec. 22, 2009 - MSPB rules Ed Masterson retaliated against me and committed a Prohibited Personnel Practice

How the time flies. A little over a year ago, Ed Masterson the ex-manager at Newark Tower was convicted of committing Whistleblower retaliation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. He was the primary actor in reprimanding me for protecting the safety of aircraft at Newark Airport.

Here's the catch - Ed Masterson received a promotion for his conviction. YES, that's right - for committing a VIOLATION of FEDERAL LAW - he got PROMOTED!!!

I'll say it again - the Merit Systems Protection Board determined that Ed Masterson - the Newark Air Traffic Manager - VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW. This isn't me talking here, it's Judge Joann Ruggiero of the MSPB in her ruling dated December 22, 2009. This VIOLATION of FEDERAL LAW - the Whistleblower Protection Act has not been punished by FAA. It was condoned and the violator - Ed Masterson- was given a promotion.

Come on FAA - it's time to fire this guy and make a public statement about it. You guys made tons of public statements about how bad a guy I was when you were trying to fire me for protecting the safety of the passengers at Newark Airport.

It's time to FIRE ED MASTERSON!!!

Inspector General Slams Air Safety Inspections - www.fairwarning.org

From – FairWarning.org

By Patrick Corcoran on December 28, 2010

Amid one of the busiest U.S. travel periods of the year, a new report suggests that the Federal Aviation Administration may be asleep at the controls.

The report from the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation slams the FAA for insufficient safety oversight of airlines operating in American skies, saying that the slowness of its inspection system has allowed hundreds of planes to fly without receiving the proper maintenance checks.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT:

http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/12/inspector-general-slams-air-safety-inspections/

April 28, 1995 - Jet Lost Engine and Air-Controller Contact

I found this online today. I was the air traffic controller in Bermuda who finally radar-identified the disabled aircraft and gave precision vectors to the field to get it down safely. The United Airlines representative is full of crap. That pilot was scared and requested the helicopters. I was told by my counterparts in New York ARTCC who worked him prior to the loss of communications that the pilot gave them his wife’s phone number to call to tell her he loves her before he died.

That plane was very close to plunging into the ocean. I’ll never forget the callsign – United 987. It was flying southbound through NYARTCC’s Caribbean area when one engine failed and the other was not doing well. These planes are rated to fly on one engine for a good period of time but in this case, the pilots didn’t believe the other engine would hold up. It was a tense situation. Then the aircraft lost it’s navigation system about 40 miles or so outside of Bermuda and I had to provide a surveillance approach to get them on the ground. Good thing I was a trained approach controller and not just rated for VFR tower.

The NYARTCC controllers released the transcripts to the New York Times because United Airlines kept denying that anything happened. The airline tried to cover up the whole thing. Can’t trust ‘em.

Ray

April 28, 1995

Jet Lost Engine and Air-Controller Contact

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Air traffic controllers lost radio contact with a United Airlines jetliner over the North Atlantic late Tuesday as the Boeing 767, having lost one of its two engines, headed on an emergency course for Bermuda and flew too low to communicate with the controllers' antiquated radios.

The controllers complain that had the plane been forced to ditch in the water, they would not have had a precise location to send rescuers, largely because of limitations of the controllers' radio system and the lack of radar coverage over water.

According to controllers in New York and a transcript paraphrasing radio transmissions that was produced by a private contractor that relays radio messages, the pilot of the flight from New York to Sao Paulo, Brazil, asked controllers to have emergency helicopters sent.

But, the controllers say, they were told by the airport in Bermuda that a rescue helicopter and a Navy P-3 Orion plane on the ground there could not be sent for hours. Instead, the Coast Guard diverted a cutter, a Navy ship and three merchant ships, and had a C-130 rescue airplane sent from Elizabeth City, N.C.

Controllers say they lost radio contact with the jet for stretches of 8 to 10 minutes or longer because their long-distance radios do not communicate well with aircraft flying at low altitudes. But the airline said the plane was in constant contact with United's own dispatchers in Chicago through a satellite link, technology that the Government has not installed for controllers.

United Airlines Flight 987, a nightly nonstop flight from Kennedy International Airport to Sao Paulo, had 111 people on board. It landed safely in Bermuda after the pilot dumped fuel to reduce its weight. According to the airline, many of the passengers slept until the flight attendants told them to buckle their seat belts for landing.

READ THE REST HERE:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60617F93C5F0C7B8EDDAD0894DD494D81&scp=2&sq=united%20airlines%20987%20bermuda&st=cse

French Court: Continental Guilty in Concorde Crash

From FoxNews:

 

French Court: Continental Guilty in Concorde Crash

PONTOISE, France –  Continental Airlines Inc. and one of its mechanics were convicted in a French court of manslaughter Monday because debris from one of its planes caused the crash of an Air France Concorde jet that killed 113 people a decade ago.

The Houston-based airline was ordered to pay Air France $1.43 million for damaging its reputation, in addition to a fine of around $265,000. The victims of the crash were mostly German tourists.

Click link for full story…http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/06/french-court-continental-guilty-concorde-crash-96617582/?test=latestnews

The Weather Channel's Top Ten Worst Weather Airports

The Weather Channel's Top Ten Worst Weather Airports:

1. Chicago (ORD) - The entire spectrum of rain, snow and thunderstorms can be found at the world's third busiest airport. More than one third of all flights are delayed. Arrivals approach from the east, making flying around adverse weather even more difficult.

2. Detroit (DTW) - A close second in weather statistics, DTWs annual days with measurable rain or snow is 137 days or every 2-3 days, which can conspire to snarl air travel.

3. New York City airports (EWR, JFK, LGA) - Approximately 27-32 percent of arrivals and departures are delayed from these big three airports. Wind, rain, fog, thunderstorms and snow can all trigger big delays and wreak havoc in the Northeast hubs.

4. Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) - Among the highest number of snow days and snowfall levels, MSP sees nearly 40 days of measurable snow falls a year. With such ominous snow statistics, delays are not as substantial and it is rare that a shut down occurs, making it an ideal location as an airport hub.

5. Boston (BOS) - The windiest airport among large U.S. airports, even a typical Northeast frontal passage can yield wind gusts of at least 30-40 mph. BOS also lands in the top five for average snow (41.8 inches) and days with measurable precipitation (126 days a year).

6. Philadelphia (PHL) - Apparently if the lowest cloud deck drops below 700 feet, it is guaranteed there will be delays. PHL sits in the middle of the pack in most of our weather criteria, averaging only 19 inches of snow a year and gets about 27 days a year of thunderstorms.

7. San Francisco (SFO) - Despite no snow and very rare thunderstorms at SFO, more flight delays are due to low clouds and fog than any major U.S. airport. Low clouds and fog can hug the Bay Area any time of year but interestingly, the spacing of the parallel runways is to blame too.

8. St. Louis (STL) - While the busiest airport around, STL is the most often impacted by weather. The Gateway to the West sees an average of 22 inches of snow each year and 7 days of measurable snow.

9. Atlanta (ATL) - Generally thunderstorms and rain, and occasional morning low clouds are the main weather factors that could cause significant delays at the world's busiest airport.

10. Anchorage (ANC) - Not only does Anchorage top the list of major U.S. airports in snowfall and snow days, but Aleutian volcanoes can also cause delays. When an eruption occurs, Anchorage can find itself downwind of the resultant ash plume, if winds aloft out of the southwest.

To view the full list check out the full list at Weather.com

 

 

FAA investigates lasers pointed at aircraft on final for runway 22 Left at EWR

FAA investigates reports of lasers pointed at planes at Newark airport
The Star-Ledger - NJ.com
AP Jennifer Brown/The Star-LedgerContinental Airlines planes sit at the terminal at Newark Liberty Airport, in this 2008 photo. ...

 

I was working the other night when some of these incidents happened.  Seem to be coming from around the Hasbrouck Heights area.

 

A big win for NATCA!

NATCA just won a $67,000 legal fee award against the Federal Aviation Administration for successfully overturning the illegal 30-day suspension levied upon me for my protected disclosures of unsafe procedures at Newark Airport. I managed to get both procedures changed and made safer and also beat FAA in front of the Merit Systems Protection Board and a neutral arbitrator.

None of the b*llsh*t charges stuck.

Now it’s time for some accountability. I’m again calling for the offending managers to be fired. I have to solid decisions proving that the managers committed Prohibited Personnel Practices under 5 USC 2302(b)(8). Not only that, they cost the FAA approximately $250,000 and counting.

Now we have a safer airport….it’s time to fire the managers that made it unsafe in the first place.

I urge you all to call your congressional representatives and demand accountability.

Ray

Know your rights - Fit-for-duty and restricted medications

Know Your Rights
Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Fit-for-Duty and Restricted Medications

   Question: Am I required to report the use of any medication to the Regional Flight Surgeon in between the yearly ATC physical examination?

   Answer: Yes.

Air traffic controllers must hold a valid and current medical clearance to work air traffic operational duties. Taking prescribed and over-the counter medication(s) can medically disqualify an employee from working ATC positions. Not reporting medication in between the yearly physical can nullify a medical clearance and render you disqualified to perform ATC duties. Failure to report medication to the FAA places you in a potential disciplinary action, which can include removal from federal service.

Even though controllers are asked the question “Do you currently use any medication?” on the Form 8500 while undergoing the yearly physical exam, all medication taken during the course of the year must be reported. You cannot wait until your next physical to report or disclose any mediation you had taken or are taking on a regular basis. If you do, you place yourself in jeopardy of violating following provisions:

1. Article 66 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
2. FAA Order 7210.3 (2-8-1 – Medical)
3. FAA Order 3930.3A (ATC Medical Standard Order)
4. ER 4.1 (Standards of Conduct)

Article 66, Section 14 is the parties’ negotiated provision concerning medication that restricts employees from performing safety-related duties. The medications listed on the guide are not comprehensive or all-inclusive. Accordingly, even if the medication is not listed, you are still required to report the drug(s) to the FAA. NATCA advises that you contact the Regional Flight Surgeon (RFS) regarding the matter and when you need to report medication use. If at all possible, do not report to the facility management. If you must, just convey that you are taking medication that may be disqualifying and that you will contact the FAA’s RFS for further advice. Please seek assistance from your FacRep before initiating a call into the RFS or when contacting facility management.

Order 7210.3 restricts employees from working operational positions when using sedative type drugs; tranquilizers; any medications that have an effect on the central or automatic nervous system; and any other drugs likely to affect the alertness, judgment, vision, equilibrium or state of consciousness. The Order clearly outlines all the possible restrictions and has “covered all bases” when it comes to prohibited medications. Again, contact the RFS to report all medications you are taking.

Order 3930.3A requires air traffic controllers to report to facility management and/or the Regional Flight Surgeon of any health problems and results of medical examination occurring between periodic exams. While the Order may not explicitly mention the reporting requirement of medication, since the prescription was obtained because of a medical exam or on the advice of a medical clinician to treat health related problems, you are bound by this Order to report the prescribed medication.

ER 4.1 (Section 15) makes a misconduct if an air traffic controller engages in an inappropriate use of legal substances, which includes prescription and over-the-counter medications. Under the agency’s Table of Penalties, discipline for forging, falsifying, misstating or misrepresenting information on government records, documents, or claims for oneself is a range of five-day to removal for a first offense.

For these reasons, it cannot be understated the importance of reporting both prescription and non-prescription use. The key issue from a FAA’s safety perspective usually is not the medication itself, but the reason the medication is being used. Only medication that is currently being used is required to be reported. Although the FAA discourages the use of “nutritional supplements” obtained over-the-counter, there is no requirement to report their use. Nutritional supplements are not regulated by the FDA, nor restricted by the FAA. They include herbal preparations, performance enhancers, vitamins, minerals and many other unregulated substances. 

For further information on the reporting requirement or if you wish to obtain an independent consultation concerning FAA’s medical qualification issues, NATCA members may contact the aviation medical professionals at www.AviationMedicine.com.
 
You may also contact your facility representative and/or your regional vice president for further guidance and assistance. When it comes to matters relating to this topic, please make sure you involve your FacRep and/or your RVP from the beginning to protect yourself and your rights. Because it concerns your medical clearance, which has a direct bearing to your ATC position, it is imperative that you do not attempt to resolve the matter on your own. Please seek assistance from your FacRep and/or your RVP. 

 

 

 

OPM Announces Delay with the Retirement Determination Process

Planning to Retire in the Next Six Months?
Friday, October 29, 2010

OPM Announces Delay with the Retirement Determination Process

If you are planning to retire in the next six months be advised that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced a delay with the retirement determination process.

What does this mean for you? If you are planning to retire at the end of 2010 or the first half of 2011, you can expect to receive “interim” payments (approximately 75 percent of your final annuity payment) for six to eight months. These payments represent a portion of your final annuity and are usually made on the first business day of each month.

OPM will only withhold federal income tax from the interim pay. If you elected to be covered by federal health and life insurance, the coverage will continue while you are receiving interim pay. OPM will begin withholding federal health and life insurance premiums retroactive to the beginning date of your annuity once your retirement application is finalized.

The FAA has advised us that the OPM is finalizing a Benefits Administration Letter (BAL) designed to address employee questions and concerns regarding the interim payments and delay processing retirement applications. As soon as it comes out, we will forward it to the membership.

For more information, please see this story that appeared in the Federal Times:
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101020/BENEFITS02/10200304/

 

 

 

Know your rights - Drug and Alcohol Testing

Know Your Rights
Friday, October 29, 2010

DOT/FAA Drug and Alcohol Testing

The Department of Transportation has revised the Drug and Alcohol Testing Order 3910.1C to 3910.1D. The Order was implemented effective October 1, 2010. NATCA and FAA are currently engaged in discussion over the agency’s unilateral implementation of the 3910.1D Order. NATCA will receive a briefing on the changes, and once completed, more information will be forwarded to the membership concerning this matter. What follows is a list of the major changes introduced by Order 3910.1D to get your familiarized with the changes.

  

The issue of and procedures for substance abuse testing is covered in all of the NATCA bargaining units’ collective bargaining agreements (Article 73 for air traffic controllers). Under the CBA provision, you are entitled to request union representation during the collection process (for either drug or alcohol screening). It is important to exercise this right so that the process, as agreed to by the parties, is strictly followed and your rights protected. Should you have any questions about this matter, please contact your facility representative or your regional vice president for further information.

Testing of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)

The Department has added “ecstasy” as commonly known to the random, reasonable suspicion, and post-accident testing. The following lists all drugs screened and the cut-off levels for the initial and confirmation testing levels.

 

                                                     Initial              Confirmation

Marijuana metabolites                   50 ng/mL          15 ng/mL
*Cocaine metabolites                    150 ng/mL        100 ng/mL
Opiate metabolites                        2000 ng/mL       2000 ng/mL
          Codeine/Morphine
**6-Acetylmorphine                     10 ng/mL          10 ng/mL
Phencyclidine                                25 ng/mL          25 ng/mL
*Amphetamines                            500 ng/mL        250 ng/mL
          AMP/MAMP (Methamphetamine)
MDMA                                         500 ng/mL       250 ng/mL
          MDA
          MDEA 

*Note: The initial test for cocaine metabolites and amphetamines cutoff levels lowered. Cocaine metabolites from 300 ng/mL to 150 ng/mL Amphetamines from 1000 ng/mL to 500 ng/mL.

**The addition of 6-acetylmorphine (6AM) determines the presence of heroin.

“Shy Bladder”

•  Shy Bladder requirements – If an employee is unable to provide a sufficient volume (45 milliliters) of urine on their first attempt, the employee will have three hours from the time of the first unsuccessful attempt to provide a sufficient volume. 

•  Employee may drink up to 40 ounces of fluid distributed reasonably through a period of up to three hours. For example, an 8-oz glass of water every 30 minutes, but not to exceed a maximum of 40 ounces over a period of three hours.

•  If the employee has not provided a sufficient specimen within three hours of the first unsuccessful attempt, he will be referred to the Medical Review Officer (MRO (Regional Flight Surgeon)) for a medical evaluation. If the MRO determines no valid medical reason for the employee’s inability to provide a sufficient volume of urine for a drug test, the test will be regarded as a “refusal test” and action will be initiated to remove the employee from federal services. If a test is deemed “refusal” it is an automatic termination without an opportunity to enter into a Rehabilitation/Last Chance Agreement.

Policy on Official and Unofficial Details

3910.1D makes the distinction concerning pre-employment/pre-appointment testing when employees move into, or is placed back into, a TDP position after a 90-day detail. 

TDP employees who are officially or unofficially detailed to non-TDP duties are subject to pre-employment testing prior to returning to their TDP if the detail is 90 days or more. An unofficial detail is considered to be any temporary assignment taken without the appropriate personnel action. Employees in non-TDPs who are officially or unofficially detailed or assigned collateral TDP duties (90 days or more) are subject to pre-appointment testing prior to appointment into the position or performance of the assigned collateral duties. Page III-6(f) – Page III-4

Post-Accident Testing CANNOT be Done at the Employee’s Residence

3910.1D clarifies post-accident or post-incident testing cannot be conducted at an employee’s residence. Drug and/or alcohol tests must be conducted at the employee’s facility.

Indefinite Suspension for Alcohol Misuse – XI(6)(b)

DOT may take action to suspend an FAA employee indefinitely if it has reason to believe that the employee has committed a crime involving alcohol misuse for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed, prior to determining a violation of this Order. There is no opportunity to enter a rehabilitation program for this offense.

Off-Duty Drug/Alcohol-Related Conduct and Self-Referral – XI(10)

When an OA [FAA] learns of an off-duty drug and/or alcohol misconduct event covered under this paragraph, the employee is no longer eligible to self-refer to the EAP. Such misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Driving while intoxicated (DWI);
• Drive under the Influence (DUI);
• Misuse of prescription drugs and/or over-the-counter medicine at any time (OAs must use the reasonable suspicion testing standard in making the determination for this offense);
• Any other police matter where the use of drugs or alcohol is noted in any police report or court documents, etc.; or
• Refusal to submit to a breath alcohol test and/or field sobriety test conducted by Federal, State, local, or tribal government officials having independent authority for the test.

The OA may learn about an off-duty situation through any available means. Misconduct may come to the attention of management because of:

• Report of Investigation (ROI);
• Newspaper article;
• Information or inquiry from a policy source;
• Information obtained as a result of periodic medical examination; or
• An illness related medical examination.

For the purpose of these offenses, a plea of no contest or other plea arrangement is not cause of drug or alcohol misconduct to be excused under this Order (3910.1D). Appropriate action may be taken in accordance with the OAs Table of Penalties.

Prohibited Alcohol-Related

The Order clarifies the issue of on-duty alcohol use to include non-paid breaks.

3910.1D
On-duty alcohol use – All employee are prohibited from use of alcohol while on duty (as specified in 41 CFR § 102-74.405). This includes paid or non-paid breaks during the workday. There is not opportunity to enter a rehabilitation program for this offense.
DOT Order 3910.1D, Chapter XI(5)(b).

 

 

 

Convention 2010 - NATCA President Paul Rinaldi

NATCA convention 2010

NATCA members united in Honolulu to administer the constitution of our union.

Avweb blog - How the FAA Works Against Safety

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_FAACounterSafety_203196-1.html

August 29, 2010 How the FAA Works Against Safety

By Paul Bertorelli

I know by firsthand experience that AVweb finds its way into the upper reaches of the FAA's HQ at 800 Independence Avenue in Washington. What I don't know is this: Do the gentle people inhabiting FAA's mahogany row have a clue of how their lower minions are carrying out their jobs? Do they have even the vaguest control over the far flung offices? Do they even care? Would they be surprised to know that the FAA's actions are sometimes counter safety?

Here's where I'm going with this. For Aviation Consumer, I've been doing some extensive research on LED lighting, specifically landing lights. This is, by the way, fabulous technology. It's improving in leaps and bounds, it's getting ever cheaper and is becoming a significant market force in the general lighting market. Yet the FAA has done its level best to keep these benefits from trickling down to aviation.

Here's how: All of the manufacturers of these products have approached the FAA for some kind of approval, even though it's not clear that any is needed. The FARs are vague on the subject, requiring only that bulbs have enough light for night operations and not present a fire hazard. That's it. The venerable GE 4509 bulb—the gold standard for landing lights—carries no TSO or PMA of any kind. It's just a bulb.

Yet, say the makers of LEDs, they are often asked by regional FAA ACO offices to conduct a battery of tests on LED products to prove…to prove what? A reading of the FARs would suggest all they need to prove is that the bulb generates sufficient light and isn't a fire hazard. Even basic common sense knowledge of LEDs can answer these questions without requiring expensive tests, which one manufacturer told me ran to high five figures and it still doesn't have the approval.

Another said its ACO insisted that the LED behave just like a 4509--same too-narrow asymmetric beam width and same mounting notch in the rim (wholly unnecessary). When I asked if this didn't dumb down potentially improved technology to the limitations of the old, I was told that...why yes, it does.

Yet another company told me its ACO refused to approve a LED bulb, refused to explain how such a product could be tested and approved and then said it was too busy to take on the project anyway. This has forced some companies to shop for ACOs that have a more realistic approach to the FAA's oversight and safety role. What that involves is an ACO culture that lucidly balances benefit against risk. In other words, any fool with a lick of sense would know that LEDs are a huge improvement over failure-prone incandescent bulbs and the risk of them causing any harm to the aircraft is too trivial to worry about.

It's probably not unreasonable to ask a manufacturer to do simple RFI trials. But even that might be overkill. At the FSDO level, some offices routinely approve Form 337 requests (good for them) for LED installs while others refuse, for no imaginable reason other than they can.

Where the FAA's actions turn strikingly counter safety is that if more LEDs were out there, pilots would tend to leave them on constantly, thus improving conspicuity and reducing the risk of mid-airs. Moreover, LEDs can easily be configured as always-on flashers—some of the products out there do that. Yet manufacturers have been reluctant to pursue the flasher approach because it complicates an already Byzantine—and entirely unnecessary—approval process. So the bottom line is, thanks to FAA actions, valuable safety technology is kept from the market for no particular reason other than bureaucratic intransigence. Even when it does make it to market, it is more expensive by dint of the make-work testing.

And by the way, if I wanted one of these LEDs for a certified airplane—and I do—I'd simply install it, approval or not. My interpretation of the FARs indicates I'm in compliance if the lamp provides sufficient light and doesn't present a fire hazard. I deem myself smart enough to determine both. Furthermore, since there's no such thing as an approved landing light bulb anyway, I'm miles away from the stench of unapproved parts. Like I said, common sense. There are little capillaries of it in the FAA, but the veins run dark with baffling illogic and flawed thinking.

Southwest Airlines Will Add Second New York City Airport With Newark Slots

By Mary Schlangenstein and Mary Jane Credeur - Aug 27, 2010 4:58 PM ET

Southwest Airlines Co. will add a second New York City-area airport, New Jersey's Newark, under an agreement to lease space for 18 daily round trips from merger partners Continental Airlines Inc. and United Airlines.

Flights would start in March, with a full schedule in place by June, according to a statement today from Southwest, the largest discount carrier. The plan is contingent on Continental and United closing their merger by Nov. 30 and on U.S. approval.

The accord lets Southwest achieve its goal of expanding in New York after failing to obtain room for more than eight daily flights at LaGuardia. The regional footprint of Houston-based Continental and UAL Corp.'s United would shrink as federal regulators assess their pending tie-up.

"This gives Southwest a foothold on both sides of the Hudson River," said Bob Mann, a former American Airlines executive who runs consultant R.W. Mann & Co. in Port Washington, New York. "Those are both high-revenue, high- spending markets, and business in New York fans out in all directions."

Southwest, based in Dallas, said it hasn't determined what cities it will serve from Newark or the timing of those routes.

Mann said the 18 round trips give Southwest a "critical mass" at Newark, and said the carrier's low-fare strategy will be a "price depressant" in markets where the airline overlaps with competitors.

Continental and its regional partners account for almost 64 percent of passengers at Newark. Continental and United now operate 442 daily round trips into and out of Newark, and said they plan to continue service to all destinations.

Continental and Chicago-based United announced on May 3 that the two carriers would merge, a process they expect to complete by year's end. The combined airline will be the world's biggest, surpassing Delta Air Lines Inc.

To contact the reporters on this story: Mary Schlangenstein in Dallas at maryc.s@bloomberg.net;Mary Jane Credeur in Atlanta 

Tell your Senators to pass FAA Reauthorization

Everyone should be placing personal phone calls to their Senators insisting on the passage of the FAA Reauthorization bill before the current extension ends on September 30th.

The passage of this legislation is essential to maintaining the positive collaborative environment we are beginning to see in FAA.

This legislation has been held up for about 4 years and it needs to be finished.

I urge you all to make the calls.

Bergen Record editorial

Still crowded up there

Monday, August 9, 2010

THE RECORD

A YEAR has passed since the terrible midair crash of a tourist helicopter and a small plane above the Hudson River.

Buy this photo

The sky over Teterboro Airport.

During the stunned weeks that followed, there were calls for change and promises of improvement. One of the most glaring problems was the unstructured airspace in an extremely congested area. Another was lagging technology. And disgruntled and underpaid air traffic controllers provided a third reason to worry.

Fortunately, there have been some good outcomes. Because of subsequent changes, investigators have looked into a quarter as many safety incidents in the state as they did last year, Staff Writer Tom Davis reported. And Teterboro Airport has been free of safety investigations since last August. That is heartening news. For six years, modest Teterboro racked up more than two times the number of investigations as its much bigger New York colleagues, La Guardia and John F. Kennedy International airports.

We are concerned, however, that the number of New Jersey's air traffic controllers has remained steady when it should have increased. And that the pay hasn't changed, either. An air traffic controller in one of the busiest metropolitan areas in the country makes less than controllers in Atlanta and Philadelphia.

"Who the hell wants to come to New Jersey and make less than they do somewhere else?" asked Ray Adams, president of the Newark chapter of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

A reasonable question. And a tough one to address, since layoffs in the private and public sectors are rampant. But passenger and pilot safety is nothing to toy with, and something needs to be figured out.

Until glitches are fixed in a new satellite system, radar will continue to be used to monitor the area around the crash. But with the metropolitan area's tall buildings and ragged skyline, radar does not always track at lower heights. Which means a year later, the danger is still there.

We understand that advances in technology can be slow, and that problems must be worked out as much as possible before new surveillance is put in place. No one wants a faulty tracking system, rushed into place before it is ready, that will lead to more awful collisions. But there must be a stopgap measure put in place in the meantime.

The National Air Disaster Alliance, which represents pilots and travelers, wants the Federal Aviation Administration and others to create a master plan that describes in detail the problems affecting planes before departure and arrival. That is a good start. But we need to do more, and sooner rather than later.

"There are a lot of systemic problems right now," the president of the National Air Disaster Alliance told The Record. "Hopefully it doesn't take any more people being killed to get them to fix it."

Exactly.

 

Ray Adams

Sent from my iPhone