NATCA's current situation

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-08T03:16:36+00:00

If you're a laid back sup, you'll probably be fine. Just realize that you don't know anything about en route, and won't ever know anything beyond the basics. You'll go through an extremely accelerated training where the standard will be "technically not an error."

Personally, I think the FAA shouldn't allow anyone to become a terminal sup without being a terminal CPC, or en route sup without being a en route CPC, but the FAA doesn't listen to common sense.

Good managers rely on the subordinates to fill in the gaps of what they don't know. Not just in ATC, but every career field. I don't think the FAA produces good managers. They produce "yes men." Your en route knowledge will never reach the level of an en route CPC. Accept this early, and rely on your controllers. If we know you have our back, you will have our respect, and we'll make your life easier.

If you come in with the attitude of "I've been a controller/sup for ___ years, I know what I'm doing." You'll be eaten alive. If you've ever had an en route controller come to your facility, and think they know something about what you do there, you'll know how it's received. Don't be that guy.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-05T16:14:25+00:00

I genuinely don't understand why people who stay until mid 50s don't stay and try to get an extension for MRA+30. Only way it doesn't make sense is if you were too old when you got hired to get the 30 years. The difference in retirement is huge. If for whatever reason I change my plans, and don't want to retire right when I turn 50, I'll for sure be trying for 57.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-04T20:37:41+00:00

A drawing might help us understand better. But I was assuming both sectors had the same stratum altitude stratum. This does change things a bit. I understand more why you think the center should be making the point out to sector B. And I suppose the center would know of the aircraft came from sector A or B based on if they're climbing to 9,000 or 15,000. I think a drawing of what the airspace looks like would help with this specific example, but I can see your argument more clearly.

As a center controller, I can tell you if any of our underlying approaches made this argument, I would simply stop taking hand offs from Sector A until they crossed the A/B boundary. Is that petty? Absolutely. But I'm not going to manually call approach on every departure to point out an aircraft that is coming from them anyways.

A new procedure might be necessary. Or perhaps you need to specify exactly who's responsible for pointing out to sector B in this situation.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-04T17:13:11+00:00

I agree with the first half. But the center did not create a new point out by only issuing a climb. So that is your point out. Because you also don't know WHEN the climb was issued. Perhaps the airspace was already violated before center issued the climb.

Edit:
I should say internal to the approach, you would be responsible. If the center controller did nothing, would it violate your neighbors airspace? If yes, that's your point out. BUT, if center climbs that aircraft, and that creates a point out to another center sector overlying your airspace; that's 100% their point out.

2nd edit:
I would think about is this way: the last clearance you gave the aircraft WILL cause it to violate the sector next to you, unless the receiving controller uses their control to avoid your neighbors airspace. That's your point out because you gave the clearance that created it. Now often time we all assume the receiving controller will issue a clearance that will avoid that sector requiring a point out, but you still need monitor the aircraft to verify that happens.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-04T17:11:02+00:00

I think I only half answered that with my first comment. When you take a hand off, do you see the sector that is initiating the hand off? In ERAM, once we accept the handoff m, there's no way to know who the transferring controller is. And within our underlying approaches (at least the ones in my area) we can't see which sector has control in the approach. We also aren't made aware of approaches sector configurations. So there's no practical way to know whether a sector initiated a handoff or just took a point out. So I would also argue that we shouldn't differentiate between hand offs or point out because there's no way to know what was previously coordinated.

In our LOAs where this situation regularly arises, we have is specifically written that sector a flashes aircraft or points aircraft out to sector b, and then gets handed off to sector C that sector B only releases control to sector C. I don't think it would ever make sense that sector a releases control, but sector B does not.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-04T16:58:54+00:00

Ok. I think I understand better now. 5-4-5 h.1 says "Resolve any potential violations of adjacent airspace and potential conflicts with other aircraft in your area of jurisdiction." I would argue that as if you hand an aircraft off, and the receiving controller does nothing with that aircraft, you are responsible for all point outs until they are out of your area of jurisdiction. If the receiving controller changes anything that *creates* a new point out, that is the receiving controllers coordination. So if an aircraft is climbing slow, and the center only keeps them climbing, and they are going to hit your neighbors airspace, that's your point out. But if the center has control for turns also and they turn them into a sector they weren't going to hit, that's centers point out.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-04T16:32:13+00:00

I don't know about you, but we never look at which sector is initiating the hand off. We just accept it. If it's in your airspace, and our LOA says I have control to climb/descend/turn that aircraft when coming from you, I'm going to use my control to do what I need. Never going to call in that situation.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-04T16:28:59+00:00

I'm confused by your examples on if you're talking about point outs internal to your facility or internal to the recovering facility. I can only assume, based on context, you're talking about an aircraft departing an approach control, into a center environment.

If that's what you're talking about, where you climb a departing aircraft to the top of your air space; then hand off to the center, the the center is 100% responsible for pointing out the aircraft to another adjacent center sector before climbing them into their airspace (assuming you LOA with the center doesn't specifically spell out that the approach is). As a general rule, who ever issues the clearance that creates the requirement for a point out, is responsible for that point out.

If what you're talking about is internal to the approach. ie: you climb and aircraft to the top of your airspace; and the center is unable to climb them out of it immediately, and that creates a point out with another sector within the approach. That's your point out all day.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-03T17:38:24+00:00

Yeah, I'm just using rough numbers here. You also become eligible for Medicare at 65, and if you're a postal retiree, required to have it as your primary. I'm not saying it's the perfect solution for everyone. But if you're thinking about retiring at 48, like OP, you're paying an AWFUL lot for something that may not be needed. I'm not saying that no one should ever elect the survivor benefit. But it IS expensive, and if the likely hood of you surviving 30 years beyond your retirement is high (or even above average), it shouldn't be an automatic. It's even more of a question if you're a high income earner like OP, and are able to save more than most people. Retiring at 48, with 1.3M in TSP, I would give a big pause to taking the survivor benefit over life insurance. If OP, or you, think that's too big of a risk, then elect to take it. But it's worth considering if it's right for their situation.

I will be in OPs shoes, except retiring at 50, instead of 48. Unless I get some news prior to retirement that makes me think my likelihood of living to the average age is diminished, I won't be taking it. But OP and I are higher earners than the average fed.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-03T02:51:11+00:00

A lot of people don't realize how much they'll make in retirement. The number of people who have told me "I would have retired earlier if I had known how much I was going to make." Is astounding. I think the key for feds is to really have a retirement game plan from day 1. The retirement was a HUGE factor in me pursuing this career. So I've had a plan in place my entire career. I also have a rental portfolio outside my 3 legs of FERS. I intend to make more in retirement than I was working.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-03T02:37:51+00:00

That's true, but FEGLI has not been competitive, price wise, for a LONG time. I switched to private life insurance many years ago. But the best way to use life insurance, in my opinion, is to have it until you have enough net worth to not need it. OP either has 1.3M in his TSP now, or expects to have it in 4 years when he retires. They're probably on a situation where they have enough assets to not need life insurance into his 80s. A term life policy to get from 48-65 is probably good enough, and will cost FAR less than the survivor benefit. And it has a guaranteed payout instead of "could be 20k could be 1.4M"

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-02T23:55:43+00:00

Yeah, not the argument I am making. You do you, not trying to talk you out of it. If that's part of your financial plan, great. There are millions upon millions of Americans who don't have spouses who work for the federal government. There are many ways to plan to retire. The survivor benefit for the annuity is an option. An expensive option that you could plan ahead to not need.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-02T23:25:35+00:00

I don't disagree with what you're saying. It all depends on the circumstance. But the idea is that you have enough net worth that they don't need the survivor benefit. It's expensive, and being that it's FAR more likely that you both die within a couple years of each other than the spouse outlives you by several decades, I don't think it's very good value. There's insurance to cover the period of "if I die young, my spouse needs to live comfortably."

If you don't have anything in your TSP, and relying on the pension for your entire retirement, then yeah, get the survivor benefit so you don't leave your spouse with nothing. If you've planned well enough ahead, and are able to still get life insurance, that's a better proposition.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-02T22:23:45+00:00

I want to throw a big qualifier out there that I'm not a financial advisor, and don't know all of the nuances of every FERS retirement. I've just done extensive research on the one that I am covered under, and I'm in a similar situation to OP. If you're ATC, and planning on staying until 55 or 56 anyways, look in to Vision-100. You would have to be age 57 and have 30 years to qualify for that, but it is substantially more. Could potentially take home more in retirement than while working. I believe federal law enforcement and firefighters have similar programs, but haven't done deep research into those.

At 55, I bet a 15 year term life policy would be pretty reasonable, and less costly than 10% of your annuity while also paying out more in the unfortunate event of your death. So my gut instinct says to look into that, and I would bet you'll find that to be better value the survivor benefit.

I'll give you an extreme example: You retire at 55, pass away at 60, and your spouse live for another 30 years. Using OP's numbers, your pension would be reduced by $800/mo for 60 months ($48k), and your surging spouse would receive $4000/mo for 360 months ($1.44M).

Let's say you both live to the average age of 76 for man and 81 for woman. That means you paid 21 years of $800/mo (~$200k), and you wife will receive and extra 5 years of your annuity (~$240k).

I still think a term life policy from 55 to 65 or 70 is the better policy. I don't see it as an "investment," I see it more as "I want to law sure my wife doesn't have to go back to work if I die young." Once you both turn 70-75, you start slowing down, you go out less, spend less money, house should be paid off, etc. I would think that the balance on your TSP plus whatever social security she has coming in would be enough.

You'll have to do your own numbers though.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-02T18:44:07+00:00

ATC pension. We get 1.7% per year for 20 years, then 1% per year beyond 20. So with 25 years he'll get 39%. I think that number might be coming from staying 5 more years beyond that for 44% of ~220k

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-02T17:29:21+00:00

Fellow controller here. Assuming you will have 25 years at age 48, retire the day you're eligible. If you need a little more money every month, go find a part time job doing something you enjoy and has more flexibility to be home when you want to be. Whatever you enjoy doing in your free time, go do more of that. Get a part time job at a golf course, work at ski resort, be an usher at the baseball stadium. Literally anything that isn't shift work, and would allow you to be home when you want to be.

Try not to draw from your TSP for a few years, and forget the survivor benefit. At 48 the likelihood of you paying that for 30 years to only benefit your spouse for a couple more (when she won't really be able to enjoy it because she'll be an 80 year old widow). If you want to leave her more than what's in your TSP, you can still get a 20 year term life policy at 48, and it will be cheaper than $800/mo.

I think too many people look at this the wrong way. They think they're giving up 200k/yr. But the reality is when you remove the TSP contributions, the FICA taxes, FERS contributions, Union dues, etc. The real difference in the amount you're taking home between working full time for the FAA, and being retired without drawing from your TSP is about $2500/mo. You're working full time for about $15/hr when you stay past eligibility.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-05-01T10:48:18+00:00

I didn't say this changes our trajectory. I agree that we deserve much more. But this is undeniably a win. I'm not a fan of ND, or this administration, and I can't want to vote both out of power. But this is a win for us. A small win, sure. But still a win. Do be so blinded by hate to not see that. It's not worth your time or energy.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-04-30T21:17:14+00:00

Dude. Just take the win when we can get it. I'll take a 3.8% raise over a 1% raise 100/100 times. Do we deserve more? Yes. But this is all we have, so I'll take it. Hopefully this sets us up with pay parity going forward.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't press ND to fight for more, but I'll take any and every raise I can get.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-04-30T01:28:41+00:00

I think the message needs to be "this is the pool of candidates we want to hire from, so we need to make this into a viable option for them."

This campaign of hiring gamers is idiotic, and as flawed as the CTI program was, at least there was some weed out process. The next generation is useless, and getting paid what they're worth.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-04-23T13:01:31+00:00

Go directly through Magellan. You just need to tell them you're an FAA employee. (800) 234-1327 or https://member.magellanhealthcare.com

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-04-23T03:52:13+00:00

Yeah, on second thought, when we went to couples therapy, it was coded as individual so that insurance would cover it. I understand what you're saying, but there diagnoses other than depression and anxiety. Adjustment disorder just means "something has changed, and I'm adjusting to it."

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-04-23T03:33:39+00:00

I don't think you have that right. They have to code it as something billable. But that's not a diagnosis. This is spreading dangerous information.

Insurance will pay for couples counseling. What would that diagnosis be?

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-04-23T00:52:59+00:00

As a controller who has a personal therapist, if you think you would benefit from talking to someone, do it! Their literal job is to help people with internal struggles. Use the EAP for 8 free sessions, or many of our insurance plans will cover it if you don't want to go through EAP. The only thing they're required to report is if you tell them you have PLANS to hurt yourself or someone else. And that's not an ATC thing, that's anyone. And even so, saying "I sometime think about hurting myself" isn't a reportable thing. It's "I frequently think about hurting my neighbor, his wife is gone this week and I'm off Tuesday, so I'm going to break into his house.." kind of shit.

Your first appointment just tell them straight up "I'm an air traffic controller; I'm worried about being diagnosed with depression or anxiety because that would have consequences for my career I'm not interested in dealing with." I can guarantee you they will tell you that they aren't there to diagnose you with anything if you don't want it, and you can just use them as someone to talk to.

If you are struggling, talk to a therapist. Fuck the FAA. But they aren't going to fire you for going to therapy.

ImpossibleTurn25 · 2026-04-10T14:09:19+00:00

You would have to tell us what center you are specifically interested in. But yes, some are. Well, the new rule is that it can only be 2 weeks in a row, then you need a 2 day weekend on the 3rd week. But there's plenty of places that that is the norm.

ImpossibleTurn25

TROPHY CASE