The FAA Follies

Here’s the rest, Hank…

“Our latest data indicates that where it used to take three to five years to train an air traffic controller, controllers can now be trained in one to three years, depending on the complexity of the facility they staff.”

Some interesting numbers here. According to Pat Forrey’s testimony, the Agency hired or is projected to hire 5,327 individuals for FY2005 through FY2008 – 4 years worth of hiring. As of June 11, 2008, only 538 of those individuals are fully certified. The FAA hired 519 individuals in FY2005. So, in essence, only 19 more individuals have certified than the FAA hired close to 4 years ago. Or another way, approximately 10% of the total hired or projected to be hired have certified in those 4 years. How can you honestly believe that the FAA is on track with hiring/staffing or that the time to train controllers has truly been significantly reduced and that safety is not being compromised?

“The most recent data shows that average training time to achieve CPC status is 1.4 years for terminal controllers, and 2.6 years for en route controllers.”

Okay, I admit it. I’m confused. You said initially that most new hires will be making over $50,000 at the end of their first year. But even disregarding my statement above, you say controllers are certifying in 1.4-2.6 years. I checked the imposed pay rules and to make over $50,000 without locality pay adjustments, those new hires will have to have reached Developmental 3 stage at an ATC-9 facility or higher OR get fully certified at an ATC-8 or higher. Those that certify at an ATC-7 or lower will NOT be making $50,000 without locality at the end of the first year or even the second. Everyone starts at the bottom of the band(s), not the top.

“We have achieved this reduction, not by cutting training time or quality, but by improving the training and scheduling processes, and by the increased use of training technologies such as simulators.”

Sidenote here: I’d like to see how many controllers end up having to repeat portions of the Agency-mandated NATPRO training because of the Agency’s “improved” training and scheduling processes. They can’t even ensure that everyone gets their TIPH, SAVI or other refresher training every quarter, let alone something that requires 10 1-hour sessions (which can’t be closer than 4 hours apart per session) and must be completed within 24 calendar days of starting session number 1 for every controller before the end of FY2008.

“With simulators, training no longer depends on the density or complexity of actual air traffic operations. Simulating the real-time traffic environment provides a uniform training format for trainees to develop the necessary skills and experience that would take much longer solely through on the job training. Through the use of simulation systems students will benefit from consistent delivery of simulated traffic, weather, and unusual situations.”

Okay, Hank, said simulators are where? Last I heard, one of the Agency’s spokespersons said there’d be 24 of the tower simulators installed by the end of 2009. We know the centers have simulation capabilities and the TRACONs have the ability to set up scenarios for radar. No new news there. 24 tower simulators. What is it? 250+ FAA towers? Yeah, I bet that’s making a huge dent.

Another point here about simulators. Unless these new simulators have people working the other positions around them, they won’t teach our new hires the “selective hearing” required for maintaining situational awareness of the entire operational environment and how to filter what’s going on to maximize their performance. Maybe the simulators have the capabilities to do so, but where are you finding the bodies to “staff” those other positions? A tower environment is different from a cockpit environment, Hank. Try spending some time in a busy tower during a push – maybe during normal operations and again during thunderstorm activity – and you’ll see what I mean.

“The simulation system provides significant improvements to existing training operations. It eliminates the need for preemptive intervention on the part of an instructor to avoid a possible hazardous situation, allowing the student to “work through” the scenario until they can consistently generate a successful outcome.”

There are no do-overs in air traffic control. I’m actually in favor of simulators, but as a tool to enhance training, not a replacement for OJT. Some of the best lessons I learned in training came from having a trainer take over the position and/or letting me know in no uncertain terms what I did wrong.

“Controllers who have recently been assigned to a new facility can also use the system to train in their new operational environment, reducing their training time.”

This is good. However, we’re only talking a maximum of 24 tower facilities here. Less than what, 10% of terminal facilities? These “wonderful” training tools are going into facilities where they have regularly scheduled traffic and planning for light, moderate or heavy traffic based on a trainee’s progression thus far can occur. Whereas in the smaller facilities, it’s not so easy to get consistent training for our developmentals where they can practice phraselogy, etc. But then again, we don’t have training departments and aren’t tripping over those golden parachuters (collecting a government pension and a contractual paycheck) who can spend the time playing on simulators with our new hires.

“We have also asked retired FAA air traffic controllers to return as contractors to train the new workforce. More than 100 retired controllers became contract training instructors in FY 2007. They joined an existing 200 contract instructors from previous years. This allowed the FAA to retain their valuable expertise and train the next generation of controllers. These experts focus solely on training the next generation of controllers, rather than moving back and forth between working traffic and on-the-job training.”

Okay, here’s that re-baselining thing again. Remember before when I complained about the years we went without a staff specialist? What the FAA has done was take what used to be positions that “focused on the training” needs of a facility, while maintaining operational currency (in the majority of cases) – which means we could use them for staffing occasionally. Now they are positions where a contractor is paid to do the same thing without the benefits of maintaining operational currency. Let me repeat that another way: the vast majority of these retired air traffic controllers are NOT performing OJT; they are NOT working air traffic; they are NOT maintaining operational currency.

Lots of problems with this one. A person who actually works the positions has a better knowledge of what is needed locally than someone who last talked to a real aircraft years ago. You no longer have a body for staffing when needed. Biggest one, though, in how this was presented to Congress was the “focus solely on training the next generation of controllers.” They don’t; they can’t; they won’t. They handle classroom training, which at a typical terminal facility (my experience) is anywhere from 1-6 weeks with maybe another round of a couple weeks right before the trainee is to begin training on radar, if at a combined facility. Oh, I guess in those 24 terminal facilities with simulators, they get to do that, too.

They rest of the time, though, these contractors might handle refresher training for everyone, and logging the training in the FAA’s various databases, and poking their noses into other facility issues that are not under the guise of training. So of a supposed 1.4 year (approx 17 months) average to certification, our trainees are in this “focused training” with these contractors for maybe 2 of those months…even adding another month for refresher stuff, that leaves 14 months that the contractors are not conducting any meaningful portion of the trainees training – that’s done on the floor.

“The FAA staffs facilities to the traffic volume and controller workload. And, since traffic volume is dynamic, so are staffing needs at any given facility. Our “staff to traffic” model exercises the flexibility to match the number of controllers at various facilities with traffic volume and workload. Staffing to traffic requires the FAA to consider many facility-specific factors.”

Oh, what a load of horse manure. The FAA is staffing to budget and rebaselining their staffing numbers to match whatever staffing they actually have, not what is actually needed to maintain an acceptable margin of safety.

“Currently, we are seeing a downturn in air traffic in most of the country. Due to the rising cost of fuel and other financial pressures, airlines are being forced to make changes. Major carriers have announced substantial reductions in their flight schedules and five airlines have gone bankrupt. These events have resulted in a reduction of over 42,000 operations from the air traffic control system. General aviation operations are also down, due to fuel and insurance costs, further de-stressing the system. With a few notable exceptions — JFK, Denver and San Francisco, for example — air traffic is down approximately 2% nationally year over year.”

So, we’ve lost 20% of our experienced workforce, but we’ve only lost 2% of our traffic. Must be the new FAA math that makes that okay.

“In most cases, this downturn in traffic has translated into fewer operations that a given controller needs to oversee. In 2000, the average annual number of operations per controller was 10,028. For the 12 month period ending April 2008, the average number of operations per controller is 9,260.”

Rebaselining again. Try dividing the traffic by total number of fully-certified controllers instead of adding in those trainees and I’ll bet you find that we are, in truth, doing more with less at dangerous levels. Even worse is the Agency’s continued increase in the supervisory ranks: people taken from the controller ranks. Instead of doing more with less at the supervisory level where we don’t really need people, the Agency instead believes it’s appropriate to let the NAS have even less people focused on talking to and controlling airplanes.

In essence, the poor planning and administration on the Agency’s part has made all of this a royal mess that each and every day puts the flying public at increased risk.

I have another question for you, Hank. Are you being fed the nonsense you testified to at the hearing by people who find themselves in the position of having to justify their poor planning and administration, or do you honestly believe it? If the answer is the first, I strongly suggest you begin surrounding yourself with people who will tell you the unvarnished truth and you start acting accordingly. If it’s the second, please find somewhere else to work; the flying public can’t survive too much more of the current administration’s idea of aviation safety.

Sincerely and incredulously,

Martinlady

Dear Hank,

I have more than a few comments about your testimony in front of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 11, 2008 about the subject of Air Traffic Controller Staffing.

“One of our more effective recruitment tools is the offer of a recruitment bonus of up to $20,000 for terminal and en route new hires who have at least 52 consecutive weeks of experience within the last two years as a certified air traffic controller with control tower operator or radar certification.”

Have you given any serious thought to the idea that if the Agency would pay a wage comparable to, or better than, the contract towers, DOD and the military that the FAA would not require the “recruitment tool” of a bonus?

“New hires with no experience do not qualify for a bonus and are sent to the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City for one to three months (depending on the type of facility they will staff), where they are paid a base salary of $19,300 per year for the short time they are there. “

Wow, $19,300. I was making almost $21,000 when I attended the Academy over 15 years ago.

“The average controller is making about $50,000 at the end of his/her first year.”

Really? Tell that to my newbies. The only ones that might be making that after a year are the ones who are receiving GI Bill Benefits that supplement their pay from the FAA.

“Controllers at the Academy are also entitled to room and board, which is reimbursed at $79.20 per day. This covers meals, lodging and incidentals.”

What about the (how many was it again? 1800 or so?) students that did NOT receive per diem? About a year’s worth of FAA hiring did not receive said per diem. And were making less than $19,300 at the time.

“Thus, student controllers earn $2,376 in per diem every 30 days at the Academy.”

Funny, the students are “earning” this money that has to go to pay for their basic living expenses while away from their homes and/or permanent duty stations…in essence to pay to live…just like any other government employee who is required to attend training away from home.

“Controllers at the Academy also begin earning annual and sick leave and are eligible for other federal benefits such as health and life insurance.”

I know you were in the private sector a long time, but do you honestly believe this is something new for federal employees?

“As you might surmise, with such salaries, training opportunities, and benefit packages, we have found that we have had no problems attracting applicants.”

As far as I’m aware, the Agency never used to have problems attracting applicants. Ask yourself why there’s a problem now.

“Our security and medical clearance process has been improved by implementing Pre-Employment Processing Centers (PEPCs) to reduce the time it takes to complete pre-hire screenings, such as medical examinations, psychological and drug testing, and security clearance applications.”

You makes it sound like this is some “new and improved” system. I seem to recall, way back when, after waiting 14 months to get a call (and that was with a 100% on the old ATC civil service exam), that my interview and additional testing took place at an ARTCC with about 70 other people.

“As noted above, we have discovered that with our salary and benefits packages, we have had no problems attracting qualified candidates.”

I think the “attracting” has less to do with the salary and more with the thought of working air traffic. The problem seems to be keeping those qualified candidates. The problem seems to be keeping the veteran controllers already in the system already making better salaries. You know the ones, Hank, they’re the ones who don’t require additional training to do the job, but do require respect. But they leave a huge gap in experience when they leave well before mandatory retirement.

“Since March 2008, we have had over 5,500 qualified applications available for selection and placement from our various applicant sources (former FAA controllers, veteran military controllers, CTI students, and public sector announcements). Our largest applicant source is our public sector announcements, which are published monthly. The last two such announcements combined yielded 2,500 qualified candidates.”

I’m curious as to what the definition of “qualified candidate” really is. Is it over 18 with a high school diploma or equivalent, writes and speaks English, and is willing to subject themselves to random drug and alcohol testing? If that’s the case, then I’ve got a couple questions for you, Hank. Why aren’t there more “qualified candidates” to choose from? Why is the FAA firing so many of these “qualified candidates” once they’re at their facilities?

“In addition to our aggressive recruiting efforts, the FAA has been offering retention incentives to retirement-eligible controllers on a case-by-case basis. Retention bonuses are typically 25 percent of an individual’s salary with a cap of $25,000. Controllers may also be eligible for relocation and reassignment bonuses for certain key facilities. Thus far, 44 retention bonuses have been accepted, and another 26 are pending consideration.”

Okay, if staffing isn’t a problem and you’ve got the right people in the right place at the right time, why would you need “retention incentives?” Less than one half of a percent of the workforce needed (we’ll say 15,000) have accepted or are considering accepting a retention bonus. Yet close to 20 percent of the controller workforce has already left since the imposition of the IWRs. And this is helping the Agency, how? Sounds to me more like trying to stem a leak in the dike with your thumb.

“Let me first say that training is something on which the FAA places a very high priority.”

Wouldn’t know it at my facility. If it weren’t for the controllers finding a way to ensure people get trained, training would not occur regularly as there is only one management person here that truly cares about the new hires getting meaningful, consistent training.

“Our controller workforce plan is projected to keep trainee to controller ratios below 35 percent. Currently, the ratio is about 25 percent.”

Interesting. My facility has been at 30 percent trainees for months and is projected to be at 45 percent trainees before the end of FY2008. Note from the field: 30 percent trainees is far too high to provide meaningful, consistent training.

“While we currently do have a higher percentage of developmentals in our facilities than we have had in recent years, our training programs are set up to maximize quality training, both in the classroom and on-the-job, while continuing to ensure we are keeping the air traffic control system as safe as possible.”

Hank, Hank, you really need to get out in the field more often. Despite NATCA’s repeated attempts to prod local management here, our new trainees are not met with a comprehensive training plan. No syllabus, no consistency in what knowledge is required to be taught in the classroom before sending someone to train on the floor. Many smaller facilities are in the same boat. The Agency refused to fund staff specialists over the past 4 or 5 years, with the argument of doing more with less, which only resulted in management getting even less done in the training arena. Not only for the new people, but the long-time controllers who haven’t been getting their refresher training.

But now we’ve got a part-time staff specialist who doesn’t maintain operational currency. Retired management-type. Must’ve been the reason we couldn’t get approval to fill the staff specialist job (when it was FAA) years ago when we needed it; gotta make room for the golden parachutes to be packed and installed.

“When developmental controllers graduate from the Academy, they are prepared to adapt to their assigned facility and successfully complete the training required to reach CPC status.”

What planet are you living on? The Academy doesn’t do nearly enough; it no longer screens “qualified candidates” who may or may not be controller material. The Academy does less now than it did 10-15 years ago. Now some very nice people who may not have a true aptitude for the profession are making into the facilities and wasting our resources, whereas before we had the knowledge that if they made it through the Academy successfully, the individual had a very good chance of becoming a contributing member of the controller workforce somewhere.

“The on-the-job training process is designed to provide developmental controllers sufficient seasoning time and opportunity to develop their skills as they progress towards becoming CPCs.”

Your description in your testimony of the bare minimums of training (I didn’t include it as a pretense at brevity on my part) is, surprisingly enough, accurate. However, this sentence above needs some work. The training process USED to be designed to provide developmental controllers with sufficient seasoning time. Supervisors USED to listen to their OJTIs and wait for them to recommend certification. Now, some supervisors are certifying developmentals before they are ready, because of staffing. Other developmentals are getting plenty of “seasoning time” on data positions and the like because as soon as they certify on those positions, management begins to use them as staffing. Not just one day a week, but 4 or 5.

I’m not finished, yet, Hank…..