USA Air Traffic Controllers - Still safe to travel to the USA?

[Renato1]

To a. and b. - the congressman is a Republican. In that context his support for Fox is expected, and little weight can be placed on it.
c. is the crux of the issue. Those not able to perform the role are not progressed to doing the job of air traffic controller. I disagree with the use of the term 'useless people'.
d. I'm not sure what your point is. Those currently performing the role are doing so in a manner which is facilitating safe transportation. Whether the person conducting that is ex military or ex Starbucks is irrelevant. If you disagree on the concept of diversity, that is a completely different matter. But if every air traffic controller is trained to the same standard, it doesn't matter where they came from.

You seem to be suggesting or inferring that a Republican Congressman in a senior position would happily lie or deliberately mislead in - in public - to support the points in Tucker Carlson's programs. What would you perceive to be the likelihood of that?

The point is that
a. The stories I originally posted were unambiguosuly accurate, and
b. The Diversity/biographical data criteria means that a large number or people who would previously have been perceived as being amongst the best candidates for training and likely to produce the best ATCs, have been rejected in favour of people previously perceived as far worse candidates an dfar less likely to produce the best ATCs.
Regards,
Renato

I've watched it twice now but I can't find the term 'useless' being used. Was this in another clip somewhere?

I'm sure there will be Republicans that don't support Fox. But i can't remember ever seeing one on air on Fox!

The correct phrase used by the Congressman was "one of these people who did not belong there".
As such people are plainly not useful, especially as they deprived someone useful a place, I used the term "useless".
But on reflection, I was not quite correct, I should have used the term "worse than useless"
Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

Well in my humble opinion it is even rarer for CNN,Fairfax and the ABC to have a contrary opinion.
Recently CNN had a panel of 8 discussing whether Trump had yelled at a gardner.All but 1 thought it was a hispanic gardner and 6 thought it racially motivated despite the fact that it was from an ubsubstantiated puff piece in a newspaper.One person supported Trump.he was a convicted felon.Now why did they use him?Wink,wink say no more.
A little later they had a panel discussing whether Russia was colluding with Roseanne to make her show in Syria.Seriously are these the guys and gals you trust?

Just to add to your insights, in Bangkok two weeks ago I was watching a CNN panel discussing the Democrat New York District Attorney who has been a champion of women's rights, and a champion in attacking Weinstein. But he had had to quit his job when it transpired that he assaulted women. A female on the panel asserted that the reason he had done so was due to the environment that President Trump had created. And Don Lemon nodded along in sage agreement, together with other panelists. My wife yelled out "Will you turn off this Sh#t".

When I wrote my review of the hotel on Tripadvisor I said that my only complaint was that their TV stations had Fox Sports, Fox Kids, Fox Movies but did not have Fox News. Never have I heard anything as utterly stupid as that CNN discussion.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

You are correct, facts are facts. If a news organisation did not tell the truth they would get into trouble, and there is no such thing as alternative facts. That said the news organisation's have a lot of wiggle room in how they present their facts as news. They don't have to present the full story, they can cherry pick what they want to tell and they can present it in any way they like, including with misleading headlines provided they don't flat out lie.

This isn't a left vs right thing, both sides of the media does this. It's just Fox news is notorious for doing so. Based on that fact alone I do not trust anything that Fox News says, even if they are correct from time to time. So when Fox News says "x" I will ask for additional sources as I know that they may not be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You state,
"This isn't a left vs right thing, both sides of the media does this. It's just Fox news is notorious for doing so."

I would appreciate any facts to support your to date unsupported assertion of notoriety in this respect.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

Does this allay your safety concerns now, that incompetent people don't make it through to actually operating in live scenarios?.

As Dr Ron points out in his post, the effect of the Congressional intervention was that 50% of the applicants got through on the biographical data criteria. Thus they took the places of 50% of people who would previously have been perceived as far better candidates likely to make far better ARCs. Result, the standard has been lowered.

Maybe, maybe not. The first question I would want to know ... what caused them to be a "former" military ATC? I know there are plenty of reasons why but if it was ineptitude, or inability to cope with the pressure of the job, then the potential remains for the starbucks employee to be a better option.

Yes such things as making a coffee, working the cash register, asking "Do you want fries with that?", contolling planes - all pretty much the same thing, right?

Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

Now we're finally getting to the bottom of this! It seems to be "diversity" in the broad sense - bringing in people which think about things differently rather than diversity in the "narrow sense" (sex, colour of your skin). The broader sense of diversity is something that increasingly HR of many organisations are looking at - bringing in people that tackle things differently and think about things differently actually improve team performance. Whether that works or not in ATC setting - I don't know - I don't have the expertise. But the theory is if you just have people from the same background it can easily lead to "groupthink", also seems to be linked to developing "nextgen" controllers, where technology will have a greater role. In other words, the issue is more complicated than a simple cable news rant!

If you look at the start of the second posted Carson Tucker video, this was shamelessly political. It made out this was about Obama administration to force more diversity on the FAA (and in the US context "diversity" is code word for employing more black people and/or women). Plays to prejudices very well. But looking at your linked posts it seems to be more an FAA decision, made based on current HR theory to bring in people with a different backgrounds.

I agree public should be made aware of the problems,. but the fear-mongering and political narrative behind it don't help.

Lets see.
a. The lawyer/former ATC trainer says this all happened abruply after Jesse Jackson and National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees (NBCFAE) met with the FAA.
b. The Administrator at the time of the change was Michael Heurta, who is a Latino.
c, The President was Obama,
d. And the the following link, half way through the Fox Business clip, you can hear an NBCFAE person's message advising his people to check their emails to find out how to pass the entrance test.

So much for your "narrow sense" of Diversity.
Or do you think Fox Business News made up their evidence?
Regards,
Renato

Unqualified air traffic control candidates cheating to pass FAA exams?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You seem to be suggesting or inferring that a Republican Congressman in a senior position would happily lie or deliberately mislead in - in public - to support the points in Tucker Carlson's programs. What would you perceive to be the likelihood of that?

The point is that
a. The stories I originally posted were unambiguosuly accurate, and
b. The Diversity/biographical data criteria means that a large number or people who would previously have been perceived as being amongst the best candidates for training and likely to produce the best ATCs, have been rejected in favour of people previously perceived as far worse candidates an dfar less likely to produce the best ATCs.
Regards,
Renato

The correct phrase used by the Congressman was "one of these people who did not belong there".
As such people are plainly not useful, especially as they deprived someone useful a place, I used the term "useless".
But on reflection, I was not quite correct, I should have used the term "worse than useless"
Regards,
Renato

The likelihood a Republican, appearing on Fox, would have an agenda to criticise the previous Obama administration is reasonably high. The same as we see here in Australia when incumbent governments like to blame a previous government led by another party.

Yes, the aptitude test questions are not in dispute. But you cannot assume from that that there's no ambiguity. We only have one side of the story. Through the eyes of Fox.

Those questions in the entrance test are potentially irrelevant to the final outcome. The process might be that out of 100 people tested 50 are not suitable. But of the 50 remaining, they are going to be just as good as the ex pilots or ex military once they have been fully trained. And the Fox story backs that up. Those not suitable are weeded out. And that would include ex pilots and ex military who are deemed not suitable.

As Dr Ron points out in his post, the effect of the Congressional intervention was that 50% of the applicants got through on the biographical data criteria. Thus they took the places of 50% of people who would previously have been perceived as far better candidates likely to make far better ARCs. Result, the standard has been lowered.

Yes such things as making a coffee, working the cash register, asking "Do you want fries with that?", contolling planes - all pretty much the same thing, right?

Regards,
Renato

Once you have done the training, it doesn't matter what your previous occupation was. If you have passed the tests, passed your training, it means you can do the job.

As was pointed out above, in Australia all you need to apply to be an air traffic controller is a year 12 certificate.

There are all sorts of reasons why people may wish to re-enter the workforce. There are all sorts of reasons why people might work at starbucks. In and of itself, working at starbucks doesn't make a person valueless and useless.

Lets see.
a. The lawyer/former ATC trainer says this all happened abruply after Jesse Jackson and National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees (NBCFAE) met with the FAA.
b. The Administrator at the time of the change was Michael Heurta, who is a Latino.
c, The President was Obama,
d. And the the following link, half way through the Fox Business clip, you can hear an NBCFAE person's message advising his people to check their emails to find out how to pass the entrance test.

So much for your "narrow sense" of Diversity.
Or do you think Fox Business News made up their evidence?
Regards,
Renato

Unqualified air traffic control candidates cheating to pass FAA exams?

Cheating is not good. But as the clip states, this would only have only been of benefit at the initial stages of the application. There was no evidence in the clip posted that this would not lead to an unsuitable person being weeded out at a later stage in the process.

Interesting that one of the interviewees states that ATC was simply a 'fall-back' for them. Who would you rather have as a controller? Someone with passion, or someone just treating the job as a 'fall-back'? I know which one I would want.

Fox news may not be making up evidence, but they are presenting information in a certain way to suit their story. The critical issue is the final outcome. While there is a risk that a diverse hiring policy may compromise safety, where is the evidence to support that that was an actual outcome?

 

[harvyk]

You state,
"This isn't a left vs right thing, both sides of the media does this. It's just Fox news is notorious for doing so."

I would appreciate any facts to support your to date unsupported assertion of notoriety in this respect.
Regards,
Renato

Fox News controversies - Wikipedia

This is perhaps the easist link to provide, like all Wikipedia articles don't read the article, instead see the references.

Now before you comment that there are similar articles for the other major us media organisations, yes there are. All media organisations have bias and controversies even independant center ones like our ABC has a degree of bias in their reporting.

That's why it's important to view news from many sources, don't take anything at face value, and apply critical thinking to any story provided, including asking the question "why are they reporting on such a story"

 

[BAM1748]

As Dr Ron points out in his post, the effect of the Congressional intervention was that 50% of the applicants got through on the biographical data criteria. Thus they took the places of 50% of people who would previously have been perceived as far better candidates likely to make far better ARCs. Result, the standard has been lowered.

If you're only taking the top 5 % of applicants the same people should/would get through even if a 1m applied.

Therefore the same people would get the job would they not. The bottom 50% would not make the cut regardless.

 

[drron]

Fox news may not be making up evidence, but they are presenting information in a certain way to suit their story. The critical issue is the final outcome. While there is a risk that a diverse hiring policy may compromise safety, where is the evidence to support that that was an actual outcome?

I see that you didn't read my links.In 2014 all applicants were selected via the "diversity"Questionnaire.Result many dropped out when going through the training program leading to the FAA missing their hiring target by 24%.I think that not having enough ATCs is a likely risk to safety.
The 2016 changes were that 50% of selected applicants had to be on the previous criteria-previous experience or those that were doing a college course which included some ATC training.Surely that is evidence that the 2014 selection criteria were at least a potential problem

The reason this has come up now is because there was a bill before Congress to take ATCs out of the FAA to bring it into line with many other developed countries-such a bill was first tried in the 1930s.All major airlines with the exception of DL and the Union were in favour of that bill.It failed and a compromise bill was passed in April 2018 keeping ATCs in the FAA fold.One might expect a disgruntled party in favour of the original bill may have leaked this selection matter to the press.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I see that you didn't read my links.In 2014 all applicants were selected via the "diversity"Questionnaire.Result many dropped out when going through the training program leading to the FAA missing their hiring target by 24%.I think that not having enough ATCs is a likely risk to safety.
The 2016 changes were that 50% of selected applicants had to be on the previous criteria-previous experience or those that were doing a college course which included some ATC training.Surely that is evidence that the 2014 selection criteria were at least a potential problem

The reason this has come up now is because there was a bill before Congress to take ATCs out of the FAA to bring it into line with many other developed countries-such a bill was first tried in the 1930s.All major airlines with the exception of DL and the Union were in favour of that bill.It failed and a compromise bill was passed in April 2018 keeping ATCs in the FAA fold.One might expect a disgruntled party in favour of the original bill may have leaked this selection matter to the press.

I read the links when you posted them.

I am still looking for evidence that the outcome of the diversity policy has actually impacted safety. This would require data showing an increased number of incidents caused by air traffic controllers since 2014, and caused by those who have been hired under the diversity program.

The links you provide speculate that there might be consequences. They have acknowledged the FAA has fallen short of their hiring targets, but you'll also note that this has been happening for the last seven years. Well before the diversity policy was introduced.

Is it possible the diversity policy was introduced to try and reverse the previous short-falls from 2011? If there's been a decline in hiring since 2011, what's the reason for that? Perhaps people just don't want to do the job? There's a huge global shortage of pilots at the moment. Maybe those with a private pilot's licences are pursuing those opportunities rather than ATC?

There may be evidence out there - real data - that supports the those actually making it to the control tower under the diversity hiring program are affecting safety (the outcome). But the Fox news story lacks those facts. Being able to use two questions in an aptitude test, which don't actually mean that much in terms of the final candidate who makes it through to the tower is, however, a good example of propaganda. It scores points on that front as a good case study for those in that field.

 

[drron]

Well for a start there were changes to the reporting of incidents as well around that time making comparisons with past years difficult.
As to shortfalls in hiring 2015 was the largest shortfall of all.
And you are np doubt aware the major reason for needing large numbers of ATCs now is because the 1981 cohort(remember when reagan had them all replaced)are reaching retirement age.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well for a start there were changes to the reporting of incidents as well around that time making comparisons with past years difficult.
As to shortfalls in hiring 2015 was the largest shortfall of all.
And you are np doubt aware the major reason for needing large numbers of ATCs now is because the 1981 cohort(remember when reagan had them all replaced)are reaching retirement age.

Indeed. And perhaps with modern technologies we want to target expert gamers (video gamers!) rather than those with a pilot's licence? I'm not sure the sole qualification of holding a pilot's licence, or being ex military is going to give the best results.

Regardless of whether, or how, the reporting of incidents might have changed (including if they are now categorised differently to look more or less serious), the base raw data should still be there for the comparisons to be drawn by those in the FAA with access to that data.

If there is a problem with declining numbers affecting safety, that needs to be addressed. Do I feel more confident with someone doing ATC simply as a 'fall back' as mentioned in one of the clips posted, compared to someone with a real passion, and aptitude for the job? No.

 

[drron]

“(ii) POOL 1.—Pool 1 applicants are individuals who—

“(I) have successfully completed air traffic controller training and graduated from an institution participating in the Collegiate Training Initiative program maintained under subsection (c)(1) and who have received from the institution—

“(aa) an appropriate recommendation; or

“(bb) an endorsement certifying that the individual would have met the requirements in effect as of December 31, 2013, for an appropriate recommendation;

“(II) are eligible for a veterans recruitment appointment pursuant to section 4214 of title 38 and provide a Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty within 120 days of the announcement closing;

“(III) are eligible veterans (as defined in section 4211 of title 38) maintaining aviation experience obtained in the course of the individual’s military experience; or

“(IV) are preference eligible veterans (as defined in section 2108 of title 5).

So these are the categories that were added in 2016 that did not get any preference in the 2014 guidelines.No pilots and only recently discharged veterans.Do I think those 2 groups were more intent on a career as an ATC.Damn right I would.
Those selecting it as a fallback were from Pool 2-selected on the 2014 criteria.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Here is the report into the matter by the Office of the Inspector, examining the 2014 system and subsequent changes: https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/ATC Hiring Report_issued Feb 15.pdf

There are a few interesting things in the report - including that CTI recruitment actually increased in the 2014-2016 period.

 

[drron]

The recruitment increased in that period because it had to with increasing numbers of retirements of the 1981 cohort as previously stated.Yet there was a record shortfall.
That report actually states the reason for the change in selection criteria was to have more women and minorities selected.

According to FAA officials, these reviews triggered further analysisof the hiring process.
In 2012,FAA contracted with Outtz & Associates to identify and analyze potential barriers to equal employment opportunities. The analysis found that four of the seven decision points used to evaluate controller applicants were potentialbarriers to women and minorities. The decision points found to contain potentialbarriers included:
•
Minimum qualifications—
Established qualifications that all applicants have to meet.
•
AT-SAT testing phase—
A computerized selection test designed to assess worker requirements, aptitude, and personal characteristics associated with success on the job.
•
Generated referral list—
Lists are generated for each applicant source (e.g.,general public,CTI,students,military, etc.)and with vacancies based on the applicant’s specified geographic location preferences.
•
Centralized Selection Panel-Comprised of management representatives who have expertise in the air traffic controller specialist occupation and knowledgeof the facilities within their regions

These raise a few red flags to me.
Then there is this.

For example, many applicants did not promptly complete their medical or security screenings, delaying FAA’s ability to bring them onboard.As a result of the delay in processing candidates under the new hiring process, the Academy had to cancel 34 air traffic basic classes,
and 614 seats were left unfilled in 2015. This caused a ripple effect because the air traffic basics class is a prerequisite for follow-on controller training courses as well. ByOctober 2015,the situation improved, as 741, or roughly half, of the applicants progressed to the Academy
or were placed at a facility.

So if they were not completing their medical or security screenings were they that interested in being an ATC.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The recruitment increased in that period because it had to with increasing numbers of retirements of the 1981 cohort as previously stated.Yet there was a record shortfall.
That report actually states the reason for the change in selection criteria was to have more women and minorities selected.


These raise a few red flags to me.
Then there is this.

So if they were not completing their medical or security screenings were they that interested in being an ATC.

The point I took away was that recruitment increased from CTI in percentage, not raw number. Which seemed contrary to the report on Fox (indicating that anyone with a supposed pre-disposition to make a better controller was being excluded).

I noted the bit about the delays in the recruitment process. But I'm not actually that surprised. Having just completed a recruitment campaign requiring a number of checks there were several delays for what should be a relatively straight forward set of checks. Some delays were caused by the candidates, but an equal number were from the authorising agencies. I also don't know who had to pay for the medical and security checks. If applicant had to find payment that could be a barrier. And delays with security are understandable (there seem to be a number of folk on the TSA's 'no fly list' that have to get redress numbers).

The extract of the response by the FAA to the Inspector's draft report regarding CTI figures:

The draft report asserts that the new hiring process has reduced or eliminated the role of Collegiate Training Institute (CTI) programs. The data clearly show the opposite result. In the 10 years prior to 2014, 53% of new hires were graduates of CTI programs. In the 2014-15 new hiring process, 58% of new hires were CTI graduates. In the 2016 hiring pool, CTI graduates represent 64% of the applicants in pool one​

 

[drron]

But again Pool 1 was only ~50% of new hires.What was the percentage in Pool 2?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But again Pool 1 was only ~50% of new hires.What was the percentage in Pool 2?

From what I understand they wouldn't be in pool 2, which are those covered under general vacancy announcements.

But I think the analysis goes to show that this is not as simple a case as Fox news has tried to make out. Yes there were some questions on the selection tests that on the surface looked incredible. Yes, the execution of the intent to create diversity was poor. Yes, there were changes in 2016 to recruiting. A whole range of matters beyond the propaganda put forward by Fox.

 

[drron]

But in fact there was a story and Fox wasn't wrong to bring it up.Yes it was sensationalised but really no more than CNN and other US mainstream media or even our ABC,Fairfax etc.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But in fact there was a story and Fox wasn't wrong to bring it up.Yes it was sensationalised but really no more than CNN and other US mainstream media or even our ABC,Fairfax etc.

Yes. But a very different story to the one Fox would have had us believe?