Item — HN Reader

Hiring controllers is not easy. A friend's daughter just went through the hiring process. She graduated from college with an appropriate degree right as COVID hit. Her FAA application wasn't accepted for four years.

This past summer she did the four-week interactive online courses. Applicants must pass this and may not re-enter the program if they do not. After that she did the six-week courses in Oklahoma City. Again, applicants must pass this and may not re-enter the program if they do not. She passed. Only half her class of 20 passed. In the prior class, only 4 of 15 passed.

She declined the position when they could not offer a position within reasonable proximity of her family. She, too, may not re-enter the program. On top of all that, the program has strict age requirements because there's a mandatory retirement age (55, I believe).

There isn't a large pool of applicants and the percentage of successful ones is not high. Considering the amount of lives on the line, it's understandable the hiring criteria is strict. All told, it's not an easy position to fill and even explicit efforts to increase the number of applicants will take years. Just like many other skilled fields.

8 comments

Their candidate success rate would probably be higher if they weren’t rejecting the vast majority of their most-qualified applicants for reasons that are clearly pretextual: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-...

That's shocking and disturbing, and is pretty much a textbook example of exactly the type of thing opponents to DEI have been referring to for how DEI and Affirmative Action result in a lowering of the bar. They explicitly structured things so that ATC hiring was pre-restricted for non-cognitive (e.g. merit) reasons, and failed out candidates that scored a perfect score on the cognitive test on the basis of their demographics (they weren't minorities).

ATC (as well as most government jobs) are a real case of "you get what you pay for". When you bring wages down so low that educated engineers don't want to work your job, your options are to lower the qualifications or leave empty seats.

DEI might have contributed to this, but we wouldn't be hiring unqualified people in the first place if America could naturally compete for talent. The lesson learned seems to be less about the dangers of diversity and more about how the feds aren't paying the industry rate for professionals.

Educated engineers generally don't want to work ATC jobs regardless of pay because they're not engineering jobs. Controllers are operators, not engineers. There are some working controllers with engineering degrees, but almost nothing in typical engineering coursework is directly relevant to the job.

Did you read the link that I replied to? Because in that link, what I am responding to, it EXPLICITLY says that the FAA changed the ATC selection process to exclude candidates based on demographics (being not diverse) regardless of their aptitude as tested using a standardized and validated cognitive assessment. These were candidates who had already completed multiple years of schooling and explicitly wanted to be ATCs, so you are talking about a pipeline problem which may or may not exist but is irrelevant to the article I am responding to in the link above my comment.

Per that article, candidates who accepted the pay terms and wanted to become ATCs were /rejected/ explicitly because they were not minorities or otherwise able to produce a biographical or demographic reason for acceptance, even when they scored a perfect score on the standardized aptitude assessment.

If you have something to refute the article the person above me linked, I'd love to see it because I'm incredibly disappointed in what I read about in that article.

No, you read a link that says people suing the FAA claim the FAA didn't hire qualified candidates on diversity.

Except that none of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit actually bothered to apply for jobs with the FAA (see this blog post from their own legal team crowing about winning a procedural matter over whether they had standing to sue given that they never applied for a job and thus were never actually rejected by the FAA https://mslegal.org/press-releases/mslf-prevails-over-faas-a... )...

What actually happened was that the FAA invalidated a bunch of AT-SAT[1] scores to align with its new diversity policy, and a bunch of people who barely passed the first time didn't want to re-take the test again and risk failing. So they did the American thing and sued instead.

The FAA has not rejected qualified candidates on the grounds of "diversity." And at any rate, the controller in the DC tower last night was hired during the Trump administration and the Blackhawk pilot that caused the crash wasn't the kind of candidate who would have been selected on DEI grounds...

[1] it's like the SAT, but for controller jobs instead of college admissions

Perhaps I misunderstood something, but it seems those claims were supported by the evidence of multiple internal memos retrieved via discovery. Another commenter points out that this practice ended in 2018 due to Congress making it illegal, but prior that the FAA had been issuing a biographical assessment as a basis for hiring decisions, exactly as stated in the article.

Your own link has the court opinion confirming my understanding of the article. The fact they won the case on procedural grounds is not relevant to the fact the court is opining in the case that the evidence supports a conclusion that the FAA discriminated against "non-diverse" candidates who were otherwise qualified.

I think we can all agree that for a role like ATC, the most important thing is that candidates are competent and capable, because it is literally life or death. I have the strong belief that minority candidates are also competent and capable, so discriminatory against "non-diverse" candidates is reprehensible in the strongest terms. I don't think my position here is unusual, unreasonable, or in any way objectionable, and it turns out Congress agreed and made this practice explicitly illegal.

It's kind of odd that blog post doesn't mention that the biographical assessment it's talking about was only used between 2014 and 2018.

It says "In 2016, Congress passed Public Law 114-190, which among other things banned the use of biographical assessments as a first-line hiring tool for air traffic controllers."

Wow.

I thought Trump instantly blaming DEI was ridiculous in this case but I’m somewhat reconsidering.

How much less of a shortage of ATCs would we have now if it wasn’t for that debacle?

> How much less of a shortage of ATCs would we have now if it wasn’t for that debacle?

Probably not much, considering the biggest constraining factor is pay. For example, San Carlos airport is shutting down ATC entirely because they can't pay anyone enough to live locally to the tower: https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/bay-area-airport-losing-...

There would be no problem filling the seats if the compensation was handsome and attractive. But we all know how federal workers are compensated, even when lives are on the line.

My understanding is ATCs are pretty well paid. With most making 140-150, and many making up to 200k.

I could see this maybe being an issue in the bay area but outside of that area that pretty good pay.

I think a small airport/airfield in one of the most expensive areas of the country is a bit of an exceptional case. In most places ATC employees make pretty competitive/comfortable wages, so I’m not sure this is the only factor.

Starting salary is US $90,000 along with government benefits.

Another problem is the maximum entry age for the ATC school - if you are over the age of 31 you can't apply.

Not being allowed to re-enter the program is just insane.

Particularly not for the last reason mentioned -- declining an offered position because it's not in a place you want to live.

Agreed. Imagine if tech hiring worked like that. Entry-level positions could be moved to WV or the Dakotas, optimize for low salary and cost-of-living and ignore retention/burnout/washout rates since you figure they're going to be high anyway.

FYI the states(/districts) with lowest ATC pay are DC, IA, MS, MT, SD, VT, WV : See third plot: "Annual mean wage for air traffic controllers, by state, May 2023" and lots of other useful stats in https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes532021.htm

Isn't it a reasonable filter? I'd (naively) assume that all things being equal, a person who passes a test on the first attempt, is more likely to have a higher innate ability than one who doesn't.

Is this wrong?

That depends on the test, and the training surrounding it.

If I'm hiring for a job where there's a strict requirement to be 6 feet tall and there's nothing candidates can do to get taller - then once you've measured under 6 feet there's no point in re-testing you.

If I'm hiring for a job where there's a strict requirement that you be able to lift a 90 lbs weight, a lot of people will fail - but if they hit the gym, in a month or two they'll be able to pass easily.

If I'm hiring for a job where there's a strict requirement that you be able to lift a 90 lbs weight, but before the test every applicant goes through a 6 month strength training program, so we test them at absolute peak strength? Re-testing would be a waste of time, except in a few cases like if someone had a loved one die just before the final test.

If I'm hiring for a job with a written test, the test draws a random selection of questions from a question bank, and some questions are much easier than others? There might be a substantial random element to the results. If re-testing people produces substantially different scores, probably that indicates I need to improve the design of my test.

Yes, wrong I think.

People's performance varies from day to day, and if doing the test just once, then some people will pass it because of good luck shape that day, although another day they would have failed.

When constantly predictable high performance is important, it makes sense to do the test on a bunch of different occasions, and look at the overall result (like, lowest, median and average scores). And it'd be ok to do a bit worse on one occasion, as long as you were always above the minimum.

Rather than in effect randomly picking just one test result.

Looking at the results from many tests, reduces false negatives, but also false positives.

(And of course if studying and practice matters, getting to re-take the test some years later: yes of course, but possibly the test should then be a little bit longer.)

Imagine if they only let people take the bar exam once.

The program needs to have high standards and I imagine some of the reasons for failing are related to ability under pressure.

Imagine if they only let people take the bar exam once.

While missing a comma can have great impact, it isn't the same as missing traffic, and ATC doesn't have the luxury of rough drafts.

How does not letting people retry even once produce more competent air traffic controllers?

Indeed. Imagine if prospect lawyers were prevented from retaking the bar exam.

ATC doesn't get to redo traffic flying in the air.

And current controllers are often working 60-70+ weeks because of the understaffing...

This is, justifiably, very similar to nuclear reactor operators. Pay needs to reflect the working conditions to attract more people (it does for reactor operators).

> appropriate degree

what's considered an appropriate degree for ATC?

No college degree is officially required. Candidates with aviation related degrees probably have a better chance of making it through. But there are plenty of working controllers who have only a high school diploma or learned the job as enlisted military personnel.

"Have either one year of general work experience or four years of education leading to a bachelor’s degree, or a combination of both"

https://www.faa.gov/be-atc

In her case it was a Bachelors in Aviation and Aerospace Science with an Air Traffic Control Concentration. There may be other programs or concentrations which are acceptable.

> Bachelors in Aviation and Aerospace Science with an Air Traffic Control Concentration

I’m not that far removed from my time in college, but I’m shocked by the specificity of that.

Here's the FAA overview of what the agency calls the Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) Program:

https://www.faa.gov/jobs/students/schools

Since the chances of landing an ATC job are so slim with the degree, what kind of job options does that degree afford you? What kind of job did she end up taking (or doing while waiting on the FAA)?

While waiting for the FAA and since declining the ATC position she's worked at her family's auto repair shop. Pre-FAA she did repair work and for the last few months since returning she's more on the management side. She hasn't yet decided if the family business or something else is the career she wants.

In addition, ATC is not allowed to go on strike, limiting the degree to which they can bargain for better working conditions, pay, etc.

Then why is there an ATC union if, apparently, it can't affect any change?

The ATC union has some unique history [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Professional_Air_Traffic_...

There is a law that the govt has to negotiate in good faith. Presumably while they could say "no" to everything, it would be hard to prove that was "good faith" if the union takes them to court.

Union predates the legal ban on striking, and still represents employees, even though their actual power has been significantly neutered.

In the US, most public-sector unions incl. transport workers are essentially not allowed strike under the Railway Labor Act unless they have exhausted all mandatory federal negotiation/ mediation (nominally on the grounds that it could cripple the economy).

This was also an issue in the 2022 US freight rail labor dispute where Biden, Pelosi and Congress passed a law to criminalize the prospect of rail strike. [0][1] If the freight staffing level cuts had been reversed, it's quite likely the 2/2023 East Palestine, OH train derailment and $$bn environmental disaster [2] would have been avoided. The freight companies, in the name of efficiency and slashing staffing levels, had combined multiple trains into one huge one (which has a higher risk of derailing, and larger size of derailment.)

To your question, it would be good if the US had a nonpartisan setup for balancing profit and efficiency vs safety and conditions, but that's not the case. Since the time of Reagan and the 1981 PATCO strike. Curious if there's any objective comparison between China and US how freight rail is operated. But then the Chinese freight rail is state-owned which largely removes the profit incentive for cutting safety. Compared to the US, China has almost no freight rail disasters, and it has more freight traffic.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33781421

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_la...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palestine,_Ohio,_train_de...

> the four-week interactive online courses

Yikes, is that paid, or is the candidate supposed to do that on their own time?

Paid