Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON Management Routinely Misclassified Operational Errors and Deviations as Pilot Errors

[Larry Dighera]

Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
IMC? Very tacky.

And apparently there's a history of this malfeasance at the
Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON. If found guilty, what's it going to take to
get these criminals terminated from any and all government service?




http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=10213
Printer Friendly
Email Page
Washington Headquarters Press Release

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release
April 24, 2008
Contact: Diane Spitaliere
Phone: (202) 267-3883

FAA Takes Steps to Ensure Proper Reporting of Operational Errors


WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today
announced steps to strengthen the reporting system designed to
classify airspace errors, in response to a report by the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s Inspector General (IG) that revealed
the intentional misclassification of operational errors at the
Dallas-Fort Worth Terminal Approach Control (TRACON).

In direct response to IG recommendations contained in a report
issued today, the FAA removed both the facility manager and assistant
manager at the Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON from their positions pending a
final determination on possible further personnel actions; additional
personnel actions may be taken. The Air Traffic Safety Oversight
organization has implemented unannounced on-site audits at the TRACON,
requiring monthly reports to the FAA’s acting administrator.
Additionally, the FAA will accelerate deployment of the Traffic
Analysis Review Program (TARP) — software that automatically detects
losses of aircraft separation at terminal facilities — at Dallas-Fort
Worth TRACON. The program will be implemented by the end of fiscal
year 2008.

“I am deeply disturbed by the findings in this report,” said Hank
Krakowski, chief operating officer of the FAA’s Air Traffic
Organization. “I am personally committed to making sure the IG’s
recommendations are implemented and that managers are held
accountable.”

Specifically, the IG found that management at the Dallas-Fort
Worth TRACON investigated operational errors and deviations, but
routinely and intentionally misclassified them as pilot errors or
non-events. The report was prompted by whistleblower allegations that
management was covering up operational errors and deviations. It found
that between November 2005 and July 2007, TRACON managers
misclassified 62 air traffic events as pilot deviation or non-events
when it fact there were 52 operational errors and 10 operational
deviations. The IG found no evidence of misclassification issues
beyond the Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON.

Krakowski said the FAA is putting measures in place to ensure that
misclassifications cannot happen anywhere else in the system. The FAA
will establish a nationwide, independent quality assurance position
that will report directly to the just-appointed vice president of
Safety Services for the Air Traffic Organization, Air Force Reserve
Brigadier General Robert O. Tarter. The position will oversee incident
reporting, make incident determinations, and audit the data integrity
of facility reports. Currently, responsibility for incident
determination lies solely with the facility manager. This move
increases accountability of the managers by adding senior-level
oversight. The FAA will also be accelerating the nation-wide
deployment of the TARP by the end of 2009.

“The safety of the traveling public is our top priority and will
not be compromised. The intentional distortion of reporting incidents
defeats our ability to understand the root causes of errors and enact
mitigation if we see a trend developing,” Krakowski said.

“Aside from the integrity issue, it’s a lost opportunity to gain
insight into causal factors,” Krakowski added. “That action is
fundamental to safety and we won’t tolerate anything less.”

The Safety Services organization will conduct audits of all air
traffic control incidents and coordinate the findings and responses
with the highest level officials in the FAA. Within the next six
months, the FAA will provide nation-wide training for Air Traffic
facility managers and safety officials about roles and
responsibilities for reporting and classifying airspace errors. The
agency’s inspector workforce will simultaneously be retrained on their
responsibilities for conducting investigations of reported pilot
deviations.

The FAA recently signed an agreement with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association to create the Air Traffic Safety Action
Program, designed to foster a voluntary, cooperative, non-punitive
environment for the open reporting of safety concerns. This type of
reporting system — which is used throughout industry — will help to
create an atmosphere where controllers and managers can identify,
report and correct safety issues and emerging risks.

###





http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/IG_Aviation_Safety_Testimony_9.20.pdf
Todd J. ZinserActing Inspector General U.S. Department of
Transportation
Before the Committee on Transportation and
InfrastructureSubcommittee on AviationUnited States House of
RepresentativesFor Release on Delivery Expected at2:00 p.m. EDT
WednesdaySeptember 20, 2006
CC-2006-074
Observations on FAA’s Oversight of Aviation Safety

During the first 11 months of FY 2006, the number of operational
errors has decreased—there were 1,242 operational errors compared to
1,358 during the same period in FY 2005. However, the number of
operational errors during the 11-month period still exceeds the total
number of errors experienced during all of FY 2004.

The increase in operational errors is significant, but it is
important to recognize that the number of errors reported in prior
years may not be an accurate benchmark. This is because, at the
majority of FAA facilities, FAA relies on an inaccurate system of
self-reporting operational errors.

In September 2004, we reported8 that only 20 of FAA’s 524 air
traffic control facilities had an automated system that identifies
when operational errors occur. At its towers and terminal radar
approach control (TRACON) facilities, FAA depends on an unreliable
system of self-reporting operational errors.

Recent investigations by our office and FAA at two locations found
multiple instances of unreported operational errors. Specifically, at
the Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON, we investigated claims by a
whistleblower that operational errors were being intentionally
underreported. We substantiated that operational errors were
systematically ignored and traced the cause to local management policy
that did not comply with national guidelines. Prior to our
investigation, the facility reported just two operational errors
during the 6-month period from January 1 to
--------------------------------------------
8 OIG Report Number AV-2004-085, “Audit of Controls Over the
Reporting of Operational Errors,” September 20, 2004.
--------------------------------------------
17
June 24, 2004. During our investigation, we identified five
unreported operational errors that occurred during May and June alone.

After instituting appropriate use of playback tools9 in June 2004,
the facility reported 36 operational errors during the next 6 months.
Facility managers also took actions to improve operations by training
all personnel on proper procedures for reporting and investigating
operational errors, redesigning facility-specific air traffic
procedures, and conducting refresher training to improve controller
performance. ...

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
> IMC?
>

No.

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
>> IMC?
>>
>
> No.

Based on past history of that TRACON, that's a sweeping assertion that is
probably wrong. It seems likely that supervisory malfeasance of the nature
reported could lead directly to uncorrected operation errors on the part of
controllers. Indeed, according to this Reason magazine article in 2005 on
"Another TRACON Scandal",

http://www.reason.org/atcreform28.shtml

the "FAA decertified one controller for committing a previously unreported
error...."

And in that case fellow controllers of the whistle-blower allegedly were
"hitting [her], making threats against her, and even trying to run her off
the road."

Not exactly behavior indicative of objective professionalism.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
>>> IMC?
>>>
>>
>> No.
>
> Based on past history of that TRACON, that's a sweeping assertion that is
> probably wrong.
>

I don't think so. The question was asked of management, not of the
controllers.

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
>>>> IMC?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Based on past history of that TRACON, that's a sweeping assertion
>> that is probably wrong.
>>
>
> I don't think so. The question was asked of management, not of the
> controllers.

Okay - but I appreciate the change from "no" to "I don't think so."
But it appears there are complaints (not mentioned in the story at the
start of this thread) against controllers and not just management:

"The FAA failed to follow through, however, and Ms. Whiteman and another
whistle-blower made new complaints last year of controllers issuing
faulty instructions to pilots."

Quoted from this report:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-controllers_25bus.ART.State.Edition2.28095ea.html

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> If found guilty, what's it going to take to
> get these criminals terminated from any and all government service?

We have friends employed by our gummint who joke that "...if we were caught
murdering a co-worker, we'd be sent to 'anger counseling'". They know
full well that they can't be fired.

In short, it would take an act of Congress to terminate the criminals.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
>>>>> IMC?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Based on past history of that TRACON, that's a sweeping assertion
>>> that is probably wrong.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so. The question was asked of management, not of the
>> controllers.
>
> Okay - but I appreciate the change from "no" to "I don't think so."
>

I changed nothing. "No" still applies to Dighera's question, "I don't think
so" applies to your statement.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 1, 2:42*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
> IMC? *Very tacky. *

Dude, do you even fly or do you just spend your day looking for
irrelevant information on the internet?

-Robert

[Jim Logajan]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On May 1, 2:42*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
>> IMC? *Very tacky. *
>
> Dude, do you even fly or do you just spend your day looking for
> irrelevant information on the internet?

Um - why are claims that deliberate re-classification of ATC errors to
pilot error not relevant for discussion on a piloting discussion group? If
that's not relevant to this group, what precisely is? Flame wars between
Bertie and Maxwell?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:08:21 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>... do you just spend your day looking for irrelevant information on the internet?

Why do you feel the subject of on-the-job fraud among ATC personnel is
irrelevant to an aviation newsgroup?

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 1, 7:16*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:08:21 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >... do you just spend your day looking for irrelevant information on the internet?
>
> Why do you feel the subject of on-the-job fraud among ATC personnel is
> irrelevant to an aviation newsgroup? *

Because it doesn't seem like you are doing it to generate real
discussion. You're just doing the drive-by thing. You drop little
bombs on the list and see which ones generate an uproar.

-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On May 1, 7:16*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:08:21 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >... do you just spend your day looking for irrelevant information on the internet?
>>
>> Why do you feel the subject of on-the-job fraud among ATC personnel is
>> irrelevant to an aviation newsgroup? *
>
>Because it doesn't seem like you are doing it to generate real
>discussion.

So it's not that you feel that the subject of on-the-job fraud among
ATC personnel is irrelevant to an aviation newsgroup, but more that
you seek to discover my motivation for posting such information.

>You're just doing the drive-by thing. You drop little
>bombs on the list and see which ones generate an uproar.

I attempt to provide a nucleus of information around which discussion
may proceed. If I have views on the subject, I express them. If not,
it is my hope that others may.

I find it curious that you seek to know my mind rather than discuss
the topics of the articles I post. It's flattering, but a rose on my
doorstep each morning would be more enticing. :-)

[EMTAE]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On May 1, 7:16 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:08:21 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> ... do you just spend your day looking for irrelevant information on the internet?
>> Why do you feel the subject of on-the-job fraud among ATC personnel is
>> irrelevant to an aviation newsgroup?
>
> Because it doesn't seem like you are doing it to generate real
> discussion. You're just doing the drive-by thing. You drop little
> bombs on the list and see which ones generate an uproar.
>
> -Robert

The FAA is "Incompetency on Parade"
I think the concerns regarding the FAA are very relevant

If you really want to create an "Uproar" talk about this
non-politically correct taboo subject

Ask FAA senior management and the airlines and the press if
there is any correlation between the FAA turning to ****
starting about 10 years ago(Along with the airlines going to
****) and the FAA filling their top ranks with incompetent
women and minorities in senior management positions all in
the name of diversity and progressiveness(Both huge SCAMS)

Try that for an "Uproar"

Also ask while the flames are building if white males over
40 are discriminated against in the FAA?

Whooooooooooooooooooosh!!!(Sound of gasoline on fire)

Ask FAA management and Congress and the Press why is the FAA
CUTTING controller and technician and aircraft inspector
positions while EXPANDING Civil Rights and Diversity empires
in Washington D.C.(Sound of explosion)

The facts are they are all true
It is why the FAA is a cluster **** mess
Incompetent women and blacks and white male sycophants are
ruining the FAA and Government

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:45:09 -0400, EMTAE > wrote
in >:

>It is why the FAA is a cluster **** mess
>Incompetent women and blacks and white male sycophants are
>ruining the FAA and Government


Oh, I see, presuming you're not a felon, you'll be voting for Obama or
perhaps Hillary. :-)

[EMTAE]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
>> IMC?
>>
>
> No.
>
>

You are wrong. Yes it is.

The FAA(Management only) is full of crooks and incompetency
in bed with the airlines and their sycophant senior management.

FAA management routinely violates labor law and hates union
personnel

http://themainbang.typepad.com/blog/2008/04/faaforget-about.html

The FAA also routinely discriminates against white males
over 40 and FAA whistle blowers

[EMTAE]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:45:09 -0400, EMTAE > wrote
> in >:
>
>> It is why the FAA is a cluster **** mess
>> Incompetent women and blacks and white male sycophants are
>> ruining the FAA and Government
>
>
> Oh, I see, presuming you're not a felon, you'll be voting for Obama or
> perhaps Hillary. :-)

Yea right

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 2, 10:56*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:45:09 -0400, EMTAE > wrote
> in >:

> Oh, I see, presuming you're not a felon, you'll be voting for Obama or
> perhaps Hillary. *:-)

Dems have been fighting for the right of felons (and those in jail) to
vote for some time. I guess they want to increase their voter base.

-Robert

[Jim Logajan]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On May 1, 7:16*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Why do you feel the subject of on-the-job fraud among ATC personnel
>> is irrelevant to an aviation newsgroup? *
>
> Because it doesn't seem like you are doing it to generate real
> discussion. You're just doing the drive-by thing. You drop little
> bombs on the list and see which ones generate an uproar.

A seemingly disingenuous complaint, given the huge number of totally off-
topic flame posts currently appearing on the group that you haven't
complained about. Or have you been posting complaints about those posts by
other posters and I've simply overlooked them?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:00:05 -0400, EMTAE > wrote
in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:45:09 -0400, EMTAE > wrote
>> in >:
>>
>>> It is why the FAA is a cluster **** mess
>>> Incompetent women and blacks and white male sycophants are
>>> ruining the FAA and Government
>>
>>
>> Oh, I see, presuming you're not a felon, you'll be voting for Obama or
>> perhaps Hillary. :-)
>
>Yea right

You know, this election is vexing indeed for racial bigots and
misogynists. Despite having the interests of big business (paharma,
oil, military-industrial, ...) unreasonably forced ahead of the best
interests of the people of our noble nation by the RNC, they are
unable to disempower the rapacious RNC by voting in a Democratic
president.

What I truly find ironic are the small businessmen and women who
believe the Republican Party supports their business interests. If
it's not apparent that the RNC places the needs of our nation and its
people well behind the transfer of wealth from the pockets of tax
payers into the vaults of Fortune 500 corporations and their
executives, they need to start thinking for themselves. Who benefited
from the Bush tax cuts?

[Jennifer Allen[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 02 May 2008 14:00:05 -0400, EMTAE > wrote
> in >:
>
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:45:09 -0400, EMTAE > wrote
> >> in >:
> >>
> >>> It is why the FAA is a cluster **** mess
> >>> Incompetent women and blacks and white male sycophants are
> >>> ruining the FAA and Government
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, I see, presuming you're not a felon, you'll be voting for Obama or
> >> perhaps Hillary. :-)
> >
> >Yea right
>
> You know, this election is vexing indeed for racial bigots and
> misogynists. Despite having the interests of big business (paharma,
> oil, military-industrial, ...) unreasonably forced ahead of the best
> interests of the people of our noble nation by the RNC, they are
> unable to disempower the rapacious RNC by voting in a Democratic
> president.
>
> What I truly find ironic are the small businessmen and women who
> believe the Republican Party supports their business interests. If
> it's not apparent that the RNC places the needs of our nation and its
> people well behind the transfer of wealth from the pockets of tax
> payers into the vaults of Fortune 500 corporations and their
> executives, they need to start thinking for themselves. Who benefited
> from the Bush tax cuts?

Wow, if you don't favor Obama or Clinton, you are a "racial bigot" or you
hate women. Fascinating application of logic. Perhaps if you vote for Obama
or Clinton you hate prisoners of war veterans?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 17:18:36 -0400, Jennifer Allen
> wrote in >:

>
>Wow, if you don't favor Obama or Clinton, you are a "racial bigot" or you
>hate women. Fascinating application of logic.

My followup article was in response to this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/5d1098b084248a72

When you have taken the time to see the bigoted, misogynistic content
of that article, you will better understand my comment, sweetie.

[Jennifer Allen[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 03 May 2008 17:18:36 -0400, Jennifer Allen
> > wrote in >:
>
> >
> >Wow, if you don't favor Obama or Clinton, you are a "racial bigot" or you
> >hate women. Fascinating application of logic.
>
> My followup article was in response to this one:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/5d1098b084248a72
>
> When you have taken the time to see the bigoted, misogynistic content
> of that article,

I did before I wrote my response to your content.

> you will better understand my comment, sweetie.

The way you talk to women is quite self-explanatory.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?
>

Taxpayers.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 17:27:12 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?
>>
>
>Taxpayers.
>

I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
benefited most:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year
saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in
the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to
a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also
shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004,
the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for
people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data,
the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts
reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the
biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the
top 1 percent of income earners. ...

[Jennifer Allen[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 3 May 2008 17:27:12 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >>
> >> Who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?
> >>
> >
> >Taxpayers.
> >
>
> I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
> were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
> benefited most:

So what? If you study history and economics you will notice that tax cuts
benefit the economy as a whole, as they have since John Kennedy's massive
tax cuts in the 1960s . Obviously if you are paying less to begin with, a
tax *cut* will be less too. If you don't believe that you are paying
enough, the Treasury would be happy to cash your check. In addition, most
of the taxes are paid by a minority of taxpayers as it is. If you want
high taxes a la Europe style tax rates, you also are demanding Europe
style unemployment and Europe style economic malaise, which makes the
current USA situation look like the 1920s.

From your article:

"The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy
households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their
share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal
income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20
percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from
66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those
with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and
received money back from the government. That so-called negative income
tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that
benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President
Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were
not paying much in taxes anyway."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
> were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
> benefited most:
>

Those that pay the highest taxes received the highest tax cuts.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
> were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
> benefited most:

duh. The people who pay taxes benefit immediately from tax cuts.
The people who pay the most taxes would logically be expected to
benefit most from tax cuts.

People who don't pay taxes won't see much direct benifit from a tax cut.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 22:24:25 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> I would venture, that you and I, and the vast majority of tax payers
>> were not among those families earning more than $1 million a year who
>> benefited most:
>
>duh. The people who pay taxes benefit immediately from tax cuts.
>The people who pay the most taxes would logically be expected to
>benefit most from tax cuts.
>
>People who don't pay taxes won't see much direct benifit from a tax cut.
>
>Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
into taking their eye off the pea.

The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
> are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
> into taking their eye off the pea.
>

Wrong.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
> are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
> into taking their eye off the pea.
>
> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.

It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 07:39:45 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
>> are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
>> into taking their eye off the pea.
>>
>> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
>> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
>> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
>
>It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
>wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").

So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
> With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
> true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?
>

You don't have a point to rebut, you just posted a load of crap.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 4 May 2008 07:21:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
>> With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
>> true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?
>>
>
>You don't have a point to rebut, you just posted a load of crap.
>

It would seem that you are also incapable of providing a reasoned
response to my statements. If you see fallacy in them, define it. If
you are incapable of that, perhaps it is because there is none.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
> >> are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
> >> into taking their eye off the pea.
> >>
> >> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
> >> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
> >> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
> >
> >It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
> >wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").
>
> So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
> With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
> true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?

I already gave the response. The people who pay taxes see benefit
when taxes are cut. This isn't spin, it's simple math.

It appears that you want to turn this into some kind class war.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:51:42 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >> Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
>> >> are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
>> >> into taking their eye off the pea.
>> >>
>> >> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
>> >> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
>> >> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
>> >
>> >It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
>> >wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").
>>
>> So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
>> With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
>> true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?
>
>I already gave the response.

A response perhaps, but not a rational refutation of my statement
based on logic. Mr. McNicoll so lacked the ability to articulate his
opposing view, that he was driven to invoke profanity in place of
logical argument; pathetic.

>The people who pay taxes see benefit when taxes are cut. This isn't
>spin, it's simple math.
>

While it may be mathematically accurate, it serves to conceal the
truth rather than expose it.

>It appears that you want to turn this into some kind class war.

From that statement, I can only assume you choose to overlook that
aspect of the issue. That's not going to make it go away.

The only reason we are debating this issue is because it was one of
the examples of RNC anti-average-citizen measures I mentioned. When
this issue is viewed along side other anti-average-citizen measures
promulgated by RNC scalawags, such as the prohibition against Medicare
negotiating lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, failure to
repeal tax subsidies for oil companies that are reaping the largest
profits in history, etc., it becomes apparent that this administration
is very definitely indulging in a form of class warfare. To overlook
that is to attempt to obfuscate it.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> It would seem that you are also incapable of providing a reasoned
> response to my statements. If you see fallacy in them, define it. If
> you are incapable of that, perhaps it is because there is none.
>

No, Larry, it's because a reasoned response is unlikely to change your
position. In these forums, over the past decade or so, you've demonstrated
an unwillingness to be swayed by facts or logic. You are not very
intelligent.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> A response perhaps, but not a rational refutation of my statement
> based on logic. Mr. McNicoll so lacked the ability to articulate his
> opposing view, that he was driven to invoke profanity in place of
> logical argument; pathetic.
>

What profanity? Have you ever been swayed by a logical argument?

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.

This is the spin. It's merely justification for more soak-the-rich
confiscatory taxation.

If you pay taxes, you get benefits from tax cuts. If you pay more, you get
more benefit. This is so simple as to make perfect sense - unless you're a
liberal.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 14:45:35 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
>> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
>> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
>
>This is the spin. It's merely justification for more soak-the-rich
>confiscatory taxation.
>
>If you pay taxes, you get benefits from tax cuts. If you pay more, you get
>more benefit. This is so simple as to make perfect sense - unless you're a
>liberal.

Did I get the following here or somewhere else? Original title Bar
Stool Economics

"
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten Comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it Would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
Arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you
are All such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost
of your Daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the First four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But What about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they Divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
That from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would Each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
suggested That it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same Amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should
pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The Sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay
$5 Instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12
(25% Savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth Now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued To drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to Compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He
pointed To the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's
right,"exclaimed the Fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's
unfair that he got ten Times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the
seventh man. "Why should He get $10 back when I got only two? The
wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
Anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat Down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, They discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money Between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
Most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
Being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
Might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
Friendlier.
"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >The people who pay taxes see benefit when taxes are cut. This isn't
> >spin, it's simple math.
>
> While it may be mathematically accurate, it serves to conceal the
> truth rather than expose it.

....none so blind as those that refuse to see.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:
>
> Did I get the following here or somewhere else? Original title Bar
> Stool Economics
>
> "
> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
> ten Comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
> it Would go something like this:
>
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>
> So, that's what they decided to do.
>
> The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
> Arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you
> are All such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost
> of your Daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
>
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
> the First four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
> But What about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
> they Divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
> share?'
> They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
> That from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
> would Each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
> suggested That it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
> the same Amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should
> pay.
>
> And so:
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
> The Sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay
> $5 Instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12
> (25% Savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> The tenth Now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>
> Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
> continued To drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
> began to Compare their savings.
>
> "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He
> pointed To the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's
> right,"exclaimed the Fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's
> unfair that he got ten Times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the
> seventh man. "Why should He get $10 back when I got only two? The
> wealthy get all the breaks!"
> "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
> Anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
>
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
>
> The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
> sat Down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
> bill, They discovered something important. They didn't have enough
> money Between all of them for even half of the bill!
>
> And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
> how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
> Most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
> Being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
> Might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
> Friendlier.
> "

I've seen this before, like you, I don't remember where. Unfortunately, the
logic is lost on contemporary liberals.

[Jennifer Allen[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:51:42 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >In article >,
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> >> >> Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
> >> >> are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
> >> >> into taking their eye off the pea.
> >> >>
> >> >> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
> >> >> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
> >> >> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
> >> >
> >> >It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
> >> >wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").
> >>
> >> So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
> >> With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
> >> true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?
> >
> >I already gave the response.
>
> A response perhaps, but not a rational refutation of my statement
> based on logic.

It is difficult to be any more based on logic than simple arithmetic.

> Mr. McNicoll so lacked the ability to articulate his
> opposing view, that he was driven to invoke profanity in place of
> logical argument; pathetic.

Your statement contains no logic. There was no profanity as you claim. I provided
many examples of logic that opposed your rants in other posts, you merely snipped
nearly all of the post and focused on one item at the bottom.

>
>
> >The people who pay taxes see benefit when taxes are cut. This isn't
> >spin, it's simple math.
> >
>
> While it may be mathematically accurate, it serves to conceal the
> truth rather than expose it.

Fascinating "logic."

>
>
> >It appears that you want to turn this into some kind class war.
>
> From that statement, I can only assume you choose to overlook that
> aspect of the issue. That's not going to make it go away.
>
> The only reason we are debating this issue is because it was one of
> the examples of RNC anti-average-citizen measures I mentioned. When
> this issue is viewed along side other anti-average-citizen measures
> promulgated by RNC scalawags, such as the prohibition against Medicare
> negotiating lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, failure to
> repeal tax subsidies for oil companies that are reaping the largest
> profits in history, etc., it becomes apparent that this administration
> is very definitely indulging in a form of class warfare. To overlook
> that is to attempt to obfuscate it.

Which special "tax subsidies" for "oil companies" are your referring to,
specifically? No obfuscations, please. Since all of your vitriol is targeted at
only RNC, which legislation to repair your supposed issue has been procreated by the
Democrat led Congress, or even signed by recent Democrat Presidents?

By the way, do you prefer more oil consumption, or less?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 14:45:35 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
>> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
>> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
>
>This is the spin. It's merely justification for more soak-the-rich
>confiscatory taxation.
>
>If you pay taxes, you get benefits from tax cuts. If you pay more, you get
>more benefit. This is so simple as to make perfect sense - unless you're a
>liberal.

As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
dividends?

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
> dividends?

0.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> It would seem that you are also incapable of providing a reasoned
> response to my statements. If you see fallacy in them, define it. If
> you are incapable of that, perhaps it is because there is none.

Do you see what happens when you try to be nice?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:37:04 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
>> dividends?
>
>0.
>
>How is this relevant?

Here's a quote from an unbiased source:

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527
Qualified Dividends Now Taxed at 15% or Less
As you know, dividends have always been taxed as "ordinary
income." That meant you paid your regular tax rate, which could be
as high as 35% (formerly 38.6%).

That was then. Effective for all of 2003 through the end of 2008,
qualified dividends from domestic corporations and qualified
foreign corporations will be taxed at the same low rates as
long-term capital gains. And those rates have been reduced, too
(see below). Bottom line: The maximum rate on qualified dividends
is now only 15%. And if you're in the 10% or 15% rate bracket (see
the table above), your dividends will be taxed at only 5%. (For
2008, the rate will be 0%, but just for that one year.)
...

One more thing: The new low rates don't apply to dividends
received in tax-deferred retirement accounts (traditional IRAs,
401(k) accounts, SEP and Keogh accounts, and the like). Dividends
accumulated in these accounts will still be taxed at your regular
rate (up to 35%) when withdrawn as cash distributions.

[Jennifer Allen[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:37:04 GMT, Jay Maynard
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
> >> dividends?
> >
> >0.
> >
> >How is this relevant?
>
> Here's a quote from an unbiased source:
>
> http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527
> Qualified Dividends Now Taxed at 15% or Less
> As you know, dividends have always been taxed as "ordinary
> income." That meant you paid your regular tax rate, which could be
> as high as 35% (formerly 38.6%).
>
> That was then. Effective for all of 2003 through the end of 2008,
> qualified dividends from domestic corporations and qualified
> foreign corporations will be taxed at the same low rates as
> long-term capital gains. And those rates have been reduced, too
> (see below). Bottom line: The maximum rate on qualified dividends
> is now only 15%. And if you're in the 10% or 15% rate bracket (see
> the table above), your dividends will be taxed at only 5%. (For
> 2008, the rate will be 0%, but just for that one year.)

Thank you for posting this description of the tax rates, which anyone who
just completed Schedule B this spring is probably well familiar with
already. The new "qualified" dividend rate was a good idea and was a
response to accounting frauds in the late 1990s. It was also designed to
generate investment in American companies. Lowering dividend rates (which
is double taxation to begin with) increases incentives of corporations to
pay dividends, (it is much harder to fake real cash paid) and it has been
successful, while decreasing double taxation.

> ...
>
> One more thing: The new low rates don't apply to dividends
> received in tax-deferred retirement accounts (traditional IRAs,
> 401(k) accounts, SEP and Keogh accounts, and the like). Dividends
> accumulated in these accounts will still be taxed at your regular
> rate (up to 35%) when withdrawn as cash distributions.

Well, obviously.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:37:04 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:
>>On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
>>> dividends?
>>0.
>>How is this relevant?
> http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527
> Qualified Dividends Now Taxed at 15% or Less

I repeat: How is this relevant to the concept that those who pay more taxes
get more benefit from tax cuts? Especially, how is *my* level of income from
dividends relevant to that discussion? What connection is there from this to
your soak-the-rich taxation desires?

Or are you simply trying to change the subject?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Dave S]

EMTAE wrote:

> FAA management routinely violates labor law and hates union personnel

You would think management covering up controller errors and deviations
would actually win some brownie points (keeping folks from being
counseled, decertified.. etc)..

Your assertions dont quite hold up in this latest chapter of your rant.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 07:39:45 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
>>> are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
>>> into taking their eye off the pea.
>>>
>>> The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
>>> from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
>>> a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
>> It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
>> wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").
>
> So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
> With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
> true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?
>


The point is that it is awful hard to give a tax cut to people who don't
pay taxes.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Peter Clark wrote:

> Did I get the following here or somewhere else? Original title Bar
> Stool Economics

Me actually please pass it around. It seems to actually turn on a light
bulb for 1 out of every 4 or 5 I've shown it to in person.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
> dividends?
>

You say dividends like they are in some way evil. If you earn dividends
that means you invested in something that was successful and created jobs.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Here's a quote from an unbiased source:
>
> http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527
> Qualified Dividends Now Taxed at 15% or Less
> As you know, dividends have always been taxed as "ordinary
> income." That meant you paid your regular tax rate, which could be
> as high as 35% (formerly 38.6%).
>
> That was then. Effective for all of 2003 through the end of 2008,
> qualified dividends from domestic corporations and qualified
> foreign corporations will be taxed at the same low rates as
> long-term capital gains. And those rates have been reduced, too
> (see below). Bottom line: The maximum rate on qualified dividends
> is now only 15%. And if you're in the 10% or 15% rate bracket (see
> the table above), your dividends will be taxed at only 5%. (For
> 2008, the rate will be 0%, but just for that one year.)
> ...

As they should be because they are an investment that funds the rest of
the economy.

>
> One more thing: The new low rates don't apply to dividends
> received in tax-deferred retirement accounts (traditional IRAs,
> 401(k) accounts, SEP and Keogh accounts, and the like). Dividends
> accumulated in these accounts will still be taxed at your regular
> rate (up to 35%) when withdrawn as cash distributions.
>

Up to 35% if you are still earning at the top tax bracket.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On May 1, 11:42*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Are these the same ATC personnel with whom we entrust our lives in
> IMC? *Very tacky. *
>
> And apparently there's a history of this malfeasance at the
> Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON. *If found guilty, what's it going to take to
> get these criminals terminated from any and all government service?
>
> * *http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=10213
> * * *Printer Friendly
> * * *Email Page
> * * Washington Headquarters Press Release
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
>
> * * For Immediate Release
> * * April 24, 2008
> * * Contact: Diane Spitaliere
> * * Phone: (202) 267-3883
>
> * * FAA Takes Steps to Ensure Proper Reporting of Operational Errors
>
> * * WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today
> announced steps to strengthen the reporting system designed to
> classify airspace errors, in response to a report by the U.S.
> Department of Transportation’s Inspector General (IG) that revealed
> the intentional misclassification of operational errors at the
> Dallas-Fort Worth Terminal Approach Control (TRACON).
>
> * * In direct response to IG recommendations contained in a report
> issued today, the FAA removed both the facility manager and assistant
> manager at the Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON from their positions pending a
> final determination on possible further personnel actions; additional
> personnel actions may be taken. The Air Traffic Safety Oversight
> organization has implemented unannounced on-site audits at the TRACON,
> requiring monthly reports to the FAA’s acting administrator.
> Additionally, the FAA will accelerate deployment of the Traffic
> Analysis Review Program (TARP) — software that automatically detects
> losses of aircraft separation at terminal facilities — at Dallas-Fort
> Worth TRACON. The program will be implemented by the end of fiscal
> year 2008.
>
> * * “I am deeply disturbed by the findings in this report,” said Hank
> Krakowski, chief operating officer of the FAA’s Air Traffic
> Organization. “I am personally committed to making sure the IG’s
> recommendations are implemented and that managers are held
> accountable.”
>
> * * Specifically, the IG found that management at the Dallas-Fort
> Worth TRACON investigated operational errors and deviations, but
> routinely and intentionally misclassified them as pilot errors or
> non-events. The report was prompted by whistleblower allegations that
> management was covering up operational errors and deviations. It found
> that between November 2005 and July 2007, TRACON managers
> misclassified 62 air traffic events as pilot deviation or non-events
> when it fact there were 52 operational errors and 10 operational
> deviations. The IG found no evidence of misclassification issues
> beyond the Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON.
>
> * * Krakowski said the FAA is putting measures in place to ensure that
> misclassifications cannot happen anywhere else in the system. The FAA
> will establish a nationwide, independent quality assurance position
> that will report directly to the just-appointed vice president of
> Safety Services for the Air Traffic Organization, Air Force Reserve
> Brigadier General Robert O. Tarter. The position will oversee incident
> reporting, make incident determinations, and audit the data integrity
> of facility reports. Currently, responsibility for incident
> determination lies solely with the facility manager. This move
> increases accountability of the managers by adding senior-level
> oversight. The FAA will also be accelerating the nation-wide
> deployment of the TARP by the end of 2009.
>
> * * “The safety of the traveling public is our top priority and will
> not be compromised. The intentional distortion of reporting incidents
> defeats our ability to understand the root causes of errors and enact
> mitigation if we see a trend developing,” Krakowski said.
>
> * * “Aside from the integrity issue, it’s a lost opportunity to gain
> insight into causal factors,” Krakowski added. “That action is
> fundamental to safety and we won’t tolerate anything less.”
>
> * * The Safety Services organization will conduct audits of all air
> traffic control incidents and coordinate the findings and responses
> with the highest level officials in the FAA. Within the next six
> months, the FAA will provide nation-wide training for Air Traffic
> facility managers and safety officials about roles and
> responsibilities for reporting and classifying airspace errors. The
> agency’s inspector workforce will simultaneously be retrained on their
> responsibilities for conducting investigations of reported pilot
> deviations.
>
> * * The FAA recently signed an agreement with the National Air Traffic
> Controllers Association to create the Air Traffic Safety Action
> Program, designed to foster a voluntary, cooperative, non-punitive
> environment for the open reporting of safety concerns. This type of
> reporting system — which is used throughout industry — will help to
> create an atmosphere where controllers and managers can identify,
> report and correct safety issues and emerging risks.
>
> * * ###
>
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/IG_Aviation_Safe...
> * * Todd J. ZinserActing Inspector General U.S. Department of
> Transportation
> * * Before the Committee on Transportation and
> InfrastructureSubcommittee on AviationUnited States House of
> RepresentativesFor Release on Delivery Expected at2:00 p.m. EDT
> WednesdaySeptember 20, 2006
> CC-2006-074
> Observations on FAA’s Oversight of Aviation Safety
>
> * * During the first 11 months of FY 2006, the number of operational
> errors has decreased—there were 1,242 operational errors compared to
> 1,358 during the same period in FY 2005. However, the number of
> operational errors during the 11-month period still exceeds the total
> number of errors experienced during all of FY 2004.
>
> * * The increase in operational errors is significant, but it is
> important to recognize that the number of errors reported in prior
> years may not be an accurate benchmark. This is because, at the
> majority of FAA facilities, FAA relies on an inaccurate system of
> self-reporting operational errors.
>
> * * In September 2004, we reported8 that only 20 of FAA’s 524 air
> traffic control facilities had an automated system that identifies
> when operational errors occur. At its towers and terminal radar
> approach control (TRACON) facilities, FAA depends on an unreliable
> system of self-reporting operational errors.
>
> * * Recent investigations by our office and FAA at two locations found
> multiple instances of unreported operational errors. Specifically, at
> the Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON, we investigated claims by a
> whistleblower that operational errors were being intentionally
> underreported. We substantiated that operational errors were
> systematically ignored and traced the cause to local management policy
> that did not comply with national guidelines. Prior to our
> investigation, the facility reported just two operational errors
> during the 6-month period from January 1 to
> --------------------------------------------
> * * 8 OIG Report Number AV-2004-085, “Audit of Controls Over the
> Reporting of Operational Errors,” September 20, 2004.
> --------------------------------------------
> * * 17
> * * June 24, 2004. During our investigation, we identified five
> unreported operational errors that occurred during May and June alone.
>
> * * After instituting appropriate use of playback tools9 in June 2004,
> the facility reported 36 operational errors during the next 6 months.
> Facility managers also took actions to improve operations by training
> all personnel on proper procedures for reporting and investigating
> operational errors, redesigning facility-specific air traffic
> procedures, and conducting refresher training to improve controller
> performance. ...

You forgot to blame the affirmative action policy




Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

Now, I've accepted your view of the issue. How about you accepting
mine? Or do you believe they are mutually exclusive?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 11:52:32 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >The people who pay taxes see benefit when taxes are cut. This isn't
>> >spin, it's simple math.
>>
>> While it may be mathematically accurate, it serves to conceal the
>> truth rather than expose it.
>
>...none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Are you under the impression that our differing views on this subject
are mutually exclusive?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> >The people who pay taxes see benefit when taxes are cut. This isn't
> >> >spin, it's simple math.
> >>
> >> While it may be mathematically accurate, it serves to conceal the
> >> truth rather than expose it.
> >
> >...none so blind as those that refuse to see.
>
> Are you under the impression that our differing views on this subject
> are mutually exclusive?

If we confine "this subject" to just the simple math vs spin, then it, yeah,
it would appear that our views don't have much overlap.

If "this subject" is more then math vs spin, then we might have more agreement.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)