ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

Recognition must be given to many people in the accomplishment of 

this work. They include the Flight Service Station Section, ATC 

Academy, Chief Wayne Kinchen, and especially members of the FSS 

Development Unit, including Jack Nimmo, James Bernardini, 

Richard Madri and the rest of the members of that organization, 

Headquarters FAA personnel including Bernie Fqnza, James Moore, 

and others in the Office of Personnel and Training, Drs. Joseph A. 

Tucker and John Convey, Catholic University, consultants, and the 

continuous consultation and support of Dr. John Dailey, Office of 

Aviation Medicine. 
1. Repo rt N o. 2 . Gov~ rn .,en t Access •on No . 

_EAA- AM -7Q -1 R 4 . Tttle and Subttde 

Performance Standards for Pass-Fail Determinations 

In the National Air Traffic Flight Service Station 

Training Program 

3. Rectptent ' s Cata log No . 

5. Report Dote 

July 1979 6 . Perform ing Organ• zotton Code 

h ?,-. -:A;::-u:;rh::o:;,-;-, ;----------------------------1 , 8 . Perform tng Organ • zotion Report No . 

Rv:=m W Pi r VY'P 1 Ph.D. 9 . Perform ing Orgont zotton Nome and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

10 . Work Unor No . (TRAIS ) 

11 . Contract or Grant No . 

!-~ Wl~:At: ~';~ J.. lil..l l. l!i>-l<'b·.nl.!lln'!-""D~.;,,_.____!2";!0~) ')~g.L1 -----------------l 1 3. T YP• of R•pon and P ••i od Covor•d 

12 . Sponso,.ng Agency Nome and Address 

OAM Report 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S .W. 

Washington D. C. 20591 

14 . Sponsor~ng Agency Code 

15 . Supplementary Notes 

16 . Abs••oct This report describes and documents l:'ass-l:'all proceaures ror t..ue uew r,::,,::, 

Training Program . New types of measures and sets of norms are used to create 

standards of performance that students must meet to become eligible for acceptance 

into the operational facility work force . One type is newly devel oped FSS Skill s 

Tests , paper- and - pencil simulations of laboratory problems, that were admini stered 

to personnel at operational Flight Service Stations across the country for validat

rel ation to on- the- job performance, and standardization purposes . Other types are 

the new academic block te ts and graded laboratory problems created for each of th

FSS positions. A student who fails both the graded l aboratory problems and skills 

tests in the Pilot Briefing , Inflight , or Emergency Services positions i s subj ect 

failure. A student who fail s to achieve a passing score on a fina l Phase Grade al

is subject to failure. The Phase Grade is a weighted average of per formances on t 

academic block tests, graded laboratory problems (all positi ons) , and the Pil ot 

Briefing, Inflight and Emergency Services Skills Tests. Norms for each Pass- Fail 

measure were establ ished on a student population , and scores of the bottom 5% of t

normative population on each measure were j udged to be unsatisfactory . These wer e 

used to establish cutoff scores for future st dent popul ations, which i s consi der e

a defensibl e procedure for Pass- Fail application . The procedur e was applied 

experimentally on the first eight cl asses, 118 students, compl eting t he new FSS 

training program . Seven students, six percent of the group , had a combination of 

unsatisfactory performances i n both skil ls tests and graded laborator y problems or 

the final Phase Grade that would pl ace them in t he Fail category . 

17. K• y Wo rd s 

Training 

Flight Service Station 

Pass- Fail Standar ds 

Skills Tests 

19. Sec u oty Cl assif. (of th is report) 

uncla ssified 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8- 72 l 

18 . Di stribu ti on Sta temen t 

20 . S•cu rity C lo ssif. (o f this page) 21. No. of Pog•s 22. P ri ce 

unclassified 44 

Reproduction of completed page authorized 
THE NEW FSS TRAINING PROGRAM 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PASS-FAIL DETERMINATIONS 

E. W. PICKREL, PH.D. 

OFFICE OF AVIATION MEDICINE 

INTRODUCTION 

This report describes and documents Pass-Fail procedures for the new 

FSS Training Program. It describes the derivation of performance standards an

presents an example problem to demonstrate their application. 

The report has the following major sections 

- Introduction 

- Overview 

- Performance Standards 

- Appendices 

- Tables 

The appendices provide rationale and technical information for the reader 

interested in details of the new program. The report can be read without 

reference to the appendices. 

Background 

In 1977 a Congressional Committee, the House Government Affairs Committe

released a report recommending that the FAA improve its selection and training 

procedures for air traffic controller specialists and reduce the $13.8 million

lost annually because of the unacceptably high number of Air Traffic Control 

Specialists who drop out of the program after several years of training. 
The report suggested that the FAA review the criteria and selection 

devices used by the Civil Service Commission and develop a test battery that 

will more accurately reveal whether a candidate will succeed as a controller. 

The committee further recommended that criteria for screening and eliminating 

unsuccessful students be established and used at the ATC Academy as well as 

later in the training program to ensure that potentially unsuccessful controllers 

are eliminated early in the training process. 

The FAA is responding to these recommendations. As an initial step, 

the Office of Aviation Medicine has created new selection tests for the Civil 

Service Commission to use after a person first applies for a position. These 

include the ATC Occupational Knowledge Test and the Multiplex Controller 

Aptitude Test. These tests have been validated against such criteria as ATC 

Academy training, supervisory ratings on the job, career progression, and 

attrition. The available data show that, with application of these tests, most 

of the applicants entering the Flight Service Station program should succeed 

as air traffic controller specialists. The failure rate at the Academy 

should be relatively low for those who enter through Civil Service 

Commission competitive testing channels. 

The House Government Affairs Committee report had further stated that 

the present training system appears to impede the elimination of unqualified 

students, forcing a decision to terminate the individual into the later stages 

of training, and recommended that criteria for screening and eliminating 

unsuccessful students be established and used at the ATC Academy as well as 

later in the training program to ensure that potentially unsuccessful 

controllers are eliminated early in the training process. 

-2-
The new FSS Training Program is responsive to that recommendation. 

Training itself is a feature of an improved screening system that will extend 

beyond the initial selection testing by incorporating measures of the candida

performance during initial training. Parts of the FSS training program will b

included in the applicant screening process. 

This effort was requested and coordinated by the Office of Personnel and 

Training, Headquarters FAA. Office of Aviation Medicine personnel, consultan

and members of the ATC Academy Flight Service Station Sections' Development Un

cooperatively developed new FSS skills tests, paper and pencil simulations of 

laboratory problems. Personnel at operational Flight Service Stations across 

the country were most cooperative in taking these tests for validation, relati

to on-the-job performance, and standardization purposes. The Chief of the Fli

Service Station Section assigned many of the instructional staff to the Develo

Unit, to assist in such tasks as designing the new classroom and laboratory 

facilities, developing the new instructional materials, laboratory problems an

procedures. Section meetings were held to keep all personnel informed regardi

this team effort, the role of such materials as the new measurement devices an

procedures being developed to assure heightened validity, reliability and gen

effectiveness within the new Pass-Fail structure, and to prepare all FSS Secti

members for that moment when the new training program would become operational

As the first class began, the FSS Section Chief's observation was that the new 

students, including transfers from the Terminal and Enroute options, seemed 

to be very receptive and well motivated in the new facility, stimulated to per

well in the new program. 

-3-
OVERVIEW 

General 

The new FSS program is aimed at providing previously screened candidates 

with a training and evaluation curriculum that should ensure that the great 

majority of them will be ready for journeyman assignments, yet eliminate the 

few whose performance in training indicates a high probability of failure onthe-job. As such, it is responsive to the House Government Affairs Committee 

recommendation. 

The program features Pass-Fail evaluation keyed to the phases of training. 

Phase II training is identified as the initial ATC Academy Pass-Fail point, 

with Pass-Fail determinations to be made at the end of Phase II and Phase III. 

When there is no information to indicate that the student has not completed a 

phase of training in a satisfactory manner, the student will be advanced to 

the next phase. Scores earned in Phase II will be used to determine advancement to Phase III, but not be used as part of the composite for Phase III. 

Phase III is designed to qualify the developmental to perform the duties 

of each position of operation. These include the duties of Weather Observer, 

Broadcast, Teletype, Flight Data, Preflight and Inflight positions of operation 

plus Emergency Services to Aircraft. The latter three include functions which, 

if not fulfilled, could have potentially catastrophic results,and impact the 

safety of the air traffic system. These also are the more complex operational 

activities, requiring some performance of most of the duties of the other 

positions, and thus are at the top of the FSS positions hierarchy. 

- 4-
Phase III Evaluation Measures 

The new Phase III student evaluation procedure is designed to be both an 

integral part of the Phase III training and a component of the screening proce

This requires that it be composed of measurement instruments that are represen

tive of the job areas found in Flight Service Stations and that it include eno

measures to permit reliable Pass-Fail assessment. Further, it must assess bot

job knowledge and readiness for job performance. Thus, it must include measur

of academic classroom achievement and ability to perform job-like tasks in a 

laboratory e·.-.vironment. 

Table I, page 21, lists the activities and measurement instruments included 

in Phase III evaluation. The number of measures available to assure valid and 

reliable assessment is displayed also. 

Academic classroom performance is measured by block tests and achievement 

tests. These are expert prepared multiple-choice tests. The fact that averag

scores for current classes are at the high 80 or 90 percent level indicates 

that training continues until high student performance is achieved. Consequen

all students completing Phase II successfully enter Phase III with a similar 

academic foundation in the FSS subject matter irregardless of considerations 

such as sex. For the academic area, this practice conforms with the House 

Government Affairs Committee recommendations. 

Ability to perform job tasks is assessed by laboratory problems for each 

of the job activity areas and by FSS skills tests for the critical areas of 

Flight Data, Preflight, Inflight and Emergency Services. A student will 

accomplish 7 block tests, 10 achievement tests, 28 graded laboratory problems 

and 4 FSS skills tests for a total of 49 independent measures. 

-5-
Procedural Changes 

For the new FSS Training Program to operate, significant changes were 

required in facilities and procedures for the laboratory phase. The new 

training program provides expanded laboratory space and an increase in number 

of graded problems for each of the critical Preflight, Inflight and Emergency 

Services activities, 

A different instructor scores the student on each graded laboratory 

problem, and without awareness of other instructors' ratings of the student's 

earlier performances. Use of multiple raters, each one independently grading 

each student, adds objectivity to the grading process. It is fair to the 

student, yet protects instructors from student complaints of bias directed 

against them. Additional desirable procedural actions are presented under 

Recommendations. 

Appendix 1, page 9, is a statement about laboratory training that 

expands upon changes in laboratory procedures. 

FSS Skills Tests 

FSS skills tests have been developed to help support the evaluations given 

in the laboratory. These are paper-and-pencil tests that simulate the laboratory 

problems. The scoring is accomplished by objective keys, a procedure that serves 

to minimize the impact of instructor biases. These new tests have been administered 

to a considerable sample of developmentals and journeymen at operational Flight 

Service Station facilities and to a comparable size group of FSS students at the 

ATC Academy for validation, relation to on-the-job performance, and for standardiza tion purposes. Since norms have been developed to describe performance of 

these groups, a new student's scores on the skills tests can be compared to those 

of FSS field personnel as well as to those of other FSS students at the Academy. 

-6-
Thus Pass-Fail evaluations are based on actual job performance data. 

Unacceptable student performances resulting in failure scores will be determin

by reference to the normative data. 

Appendix 2, page 11, contains a detailed description of the process by wh

the normative data was acquired and the norms established. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

The establishment of standards for applying Pass-Fail criteria to Phase 

III student performance has been based on detailed analysis of data obtained 

on 253 active FSS air traffic control specialists, the last eight ATC Academy 

classes (78-1 through 78-8) in the old training program, and the first eight 

classes (7 8-01 through 9006) in the new training program. The technical analy

that supports the standards and procedures described herein is provided in 

Appendix 3, page 15. The objective, in line with the House Government Affairs 

Committee recommendations, has been to provide an initial rationale and proced

that will minimize failures, yet eliminate students most unlikely to succeed 

on the job. A basic assumption underlying the standards is that the ATC 

Occupational Knowledge Test and the Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test will be 

used in the selection of candidates for the FSS air traffic controller specia

positions. 

Briefly, with this cutoff procedure, a student who fails both the laborat

problems and skills test in the Pilot Briefing or Inflight or Emergency Servic

positions is subject to failure. These include functions which, if not fulfil

could have potentially catastrophic results and impact the safety of the air t

system. A student who fails to achieve a passing score on the final Phase Gra

also is subject to failure. This Phase composite is a weighted average of all 

phase scores including academic block tests, the Pilot Briefing, Inflight, and 

-7-
Emergency Services skills tests, and the graded laboratory problems for 

all positions. This is the procedure as established thus far. 

This procedure is recommended to identify those whose performance is 

unacceptable. A reviewer then should determine the degree of consistency 

among the student's scores, to assure that sub-par performance is not resulting from chance variations in measurement. Since a student's ATC career is 

at stake and judgments made during this review have a high level of personal 

consequence, a recommendation is that the review be carried out by the FSS 

Section Chief or his designated delegate. Office of Aviation Medicine and 

FSS Academy personnel will continue research and development work to further 

refine and strengthen the cut-off standards. 

-8-
APPENDIX I 

LABORATORY PROCEDURES 

The laboratory is an attempt to create, at the ATC Academy, something 

similar to the operational environment. It provides the opportunity for each 

student to practice what has been learned in the classroom, and is the best 

available phase of ATC Academy training for measurement of the ability to per

form the duties of the various FSS positions of operation. Most graded 

laboratory problem scores are derived from over-the-shoulder observations, 

using checklists that were derived from analysis of the tasks involved 

during operational work performance. The observer indicates whether each 

step has been successfully achieved. Through checking of task elements 

(steps), these checklists minimize subjectivity in the assessment process. 

Such assessments are more reliable than descriptive or numerical rating scale

Evaluation forms in the old training program did not incorporate 

instructor's comments into the grading process. Instructor comments were 

available on the back of the forms, but were not reduced to numerical scores. 

Instructor evaluations were being used as part of student aggregate scores 

in the terminal and enroute ATC Academy courses, adding a new element to the 

aggregate scores and increasing the stability of the Pass-Fail assessment on 

each problem. An incorporation of the instructor's numerical assessment of 

each student's performance on a problem, and predicted potential performance 

on future problems, was added to the checklists to be used in the new FSS 

Training Program. 

A weakness of the old training program's laboratory phase was the shortage of work space for positions, which resulted in a student receiving only 

two practice problems and one graded problem in the primary positions. 

Laboratory problems are individual testing situations that provide opportunit

-9-
for attention to much detail, but the process is time-consuming, and the use 

of single problem scores permitted too much opportunity for chance elements 

to enter into Pass-Fail judgments. The new FSS Training Program provides 

for expanded laboratory space and an increase in the number of graded problems 

per position. For example, there are four graded problems for each of the 

primary Preflight, Inflight, and Emergency Services activities. A different 

instructor scores the student on each problem, and without awareness of 

other instructors' ratings of the student's earlier performance. A procedure 

of using multiple raters, each one independently grading each student, adds 

objectivity to the grading process. It also provides an excellent defense 

against the student who receives a failure in the course and sends out letters 

of complaint, saying one instructor was responsible for this and did it out 

of spite because of the student's race, religion, or sex. 

-10-
APPENDIX 2 

EVALUATION OF THE FSS SKILLS TESTS 

Information concerning the suitability and the operational usefulness of 

the new FSS skills tests was obtained empirically by carefully selecting an 

Operational Facility sample of practicing Air Traffic Controllers and a sample

comparable in size, of ATC Academy students. Demographic data, test performan

scores and intercorrelations for the two samples are presented in the tables 

of this report. 

Operational Facility Sample 

Some characteristics of the operational facility sample are described in 

Table 2, page 22. Almost 90% were males and over 30 years of age. Approxima

75% were of grade GS-11 or higher. Seventy-two percent had attended college, 

and 17% of this sample held a bachelors or masters degree. Eighty-one percent 

had 36 months or more experience in the FSS activity, and 70% were full 

performance level personnel. Forty-two percent held some kind of pilot certif

cate, with 25% holding a commercial or instructor's rating. Relationships 

between skills test performances and various kinds of experience are described 

in Table 3-6, page 23-36. There is improvement in skills test mean performanc

scores with increased job experience, i.e. between performances of those with 

less than two years of FSS experience and those with 2 to 3 years experience, 

but generally little or no gain after that time. Personnel in that larger 

group, the older people, include several kinds of administrators and staff 

personnel whose other duties can cause them to lose touch with technical 

details relating to day-to-day servicing of aircraft. Increases in GS-grade 

-11-
of the improvement in performance peaks at the GS-11 level, and generally 

there is little or no gain for grades GS-12 and up. Those holding commerical 

and instructor pilot certificates perform better on the skills tests than 

those who are less experienced. Those with Enroute Flight Advisory Service 

(EFAS) training consistently perform somewhat better than those lacking that 

additional training. Those receiving ATC Academy training more than a year 

ago score better than those who never received such training , but the relatively 

inexperienced personnel who received their ATC Academy training within the last 

year did not perform as well as more experienced personnel who never received 

such training. Those in facilities having a full time Evaluation Professional 

Development Specialist (EPDS) scored somewhat higher on the Preflight, Inflight, 

and Emergency Service Skills Tests than those at facilities without the services 

of a full time specialist~ Differences in skills test performances between 

sexes can be accounted for by chance; there is no significant difference from 

this sample on these tests. Intercorrelations of past experience and performance 

on the skills tests are presented in Table 7, page 27 and show a significant 

relation between skills test performance and success in the FSS option. 

ATC Academy Sample 

Some characteristics of the ATC Academy student sample are described in 

Table 8, page 28. Approximately 43 percent were over thirty years of age, and 

20% were females. Seventy-seven percent claimed some college education, and 

27% claimed a bachelors or masters degree. Seventy-seven percent cl a i med prior 

ATC experience and 42% held some type of pilot certificate. 

-12-
Table 9, page 29, presents summary statistics and intercorrelations of 

performance on FSS skills tests and graded laboratory problems for the student 

population in the old training program. The FSS skills tests correlate well 

with Fundamentals of Air Traffic Control, a multiple-choice measure of general 

information in air traffic control, as well as with the laboratory average 

grade and with each other. The Preflight Briefing Skills Test is scored Rights 

Only, and correlates .384 with the lab average score. This test presents in 

written form the kind of dialogue that takes place when a pilot communicates 

by radio or telephone for a briefing. The student is supplied with weather 

data sheets for which to supply this kind of information, plus multiple choice 

questions regarding the appropriate responses to the pilot's questions. The 

Inflight Skills Test presents in written form the kind of dialogue that takes 

place between those working this position and pilots who are airborne. The 

student is provided Weather Data Sheets from which to provide this type of 

information and an Action List of nineteen possible actions from which to 

select responses for the questions. As multiple actions should be taken in 

most situations, the student may erroneously omit some actions that should be 

identified, and include actions that would be inappropriate or wrong. These 

omission and commission errors seem to be quite independent negative scores 

or error measurement. The data suggest that a combining of the two scores to 

form a new "omit plus wrongs" score would provide an excellent measure of the 

student's performance on the Inflight Skills Test. 

Emergency Services Skills Test is a VOR orientation problem, utilizing 

a branching technique to present the student with optional paths to follow 

in locating a lost aircraft. If the student makes a poor decision, opportunities 

are provided in the form of Minor Error paths, for a return to the better 

"Major Decision" path. Phraseology questions also are provided in the test. 

-13-
The Phraseology and Major Decisions subscores seem to be parallel measures 

of the same skill. A combining of these should provide a more reliable 

single measurement. The Minor Error path provides much logical appeal to 

specialists in air traffic control and is needed to maintain the simulation. 

A total score which combines these sub-scores, is recommended for use in 

determining Pass-Fail for the Emergency Skills Test. 

-14-
EVOLVING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

Scores of operational personnel and those of past stuclents may be used to 

create standards of performance that new students must meet to become eligible 

for acceptance into the operational facility work force. For example, the 

total work force's capabilities will gradually improve if an entrance eligibility requirement for new personnel is that their test performance must be better 

than that of the bottom 5% of the current work force. Students nearing 

completion of ATC Academy training might then be required to meet this standard 

to demonstrate their readiness for an operational assignment. The operational 

FSS facility sample, Table 2, and the ATC Academy FSS student sample, Table 8, 

had remarkably similar Ci.emogr&phic characteristics. Performances of students 

in the first eight classes 78-01 through 9006, in the new training program 

should provide a stable statistical base for derivation of Pass-Fail cutoffs. 

Laboratory Grades 

The development of improved laboratory procedures for the new training 

program have been described in Appendix 1. The number of graded problems was 

increased fourfold, instructor evaluations were incorporated into the grading 

process, and stricter, more objective quantitative grading procedures were 

introduced to provide an improved scoring base for identifying the weak 

students. Table 10-12 (pages 30-Ja present distributions of laboratory 

averages in Pre-Flight, Inflight, and Emergency Services for samples of 

students in the old and the new training programs. The Preflight Lab Problem 

mean dropped from 95.72 in the old program to 80.12 in the new program. 

The distribution of scores in the old program ranged from 80 to 100, but in 

the new program the range is from a 52 to a 91, which will be more useful for 

identification of weak students. The Inf light Lab Problem mean dropped from 

-15-
65 to 100 and with only three students scoring below 84. In the new program 

it ranges from 69 thru 98, with a half dozen students scoring below 72. The 

Emergency Services Lab Problem scores were a binary pass-fail in the old 

training program, and scores in the new program range from 67 through 98 

with a mean of 87.69 . The cutoff scores for each distribution in the new 

training program below which approximately five percent of the students scored 

is given in Table 18, page 39· The cutoffs for passing Preflight, Inflight, 

and Emergency Services are laboratory problem score averages (four problems) 

of 70, 72, and 76, respectively, representing 6.8%, 5 .1 %, and 5.8% of the 

students from these classes. 

Skills Tests 

Evaluation of the FSS skills tests has been presented in Appendix 2. 

The distributions of the Preflight, Inflight, and Emergency Services Skills 

Test scores for the Operational Facility, old training course, and new training 

course samples are presented in Tables 13-17, (pages 33-38 ) • As shown in 

Table 13, page 33, performance of students in the new training program on the 

Preflight Briefing Skills Test was slightly better than that of students in 

the old training program, and persons from operational facilities scored somewhat higher than either student group. Tables 15-17 present distributions of 

totals scores on the Inflight and Emergency Services skills tests. The 

Inflight totals score is negative, a sum of wrongs and omissions. The Emergenc

Services total score is a weighted composite, with major decisions assigned a 

weight of 5, minor errors a weight of 3, and phraseology a weight of 1. The 

improved performance of the students in the new training program is striking. 

Those in the new training program averaged 17 fewer mistakes on the Inflight 

skills test, and averaged ten points better on the Emergency Services test 

-16-
Table 18 contains the cutoff score for each Skills Test for classes 

78-01 to 9006. These cutoffs for Preflight, Inflight, and Emergency Services 

are 11, 32, and 15, respectively, representing 10.2%, 6.8%, and 5.9% of the 

students in these classes. 

Since the Skills Tests are to be incorporated into the calculation of 

the final phase grade for future classes, it was desired to transform the 

raw score for these tests to a 0-100 scale where the cutoff score would be 

given a value of 70. Table 19 gives the converted grades for each of the 

Skills Tests. The raw scores above the cutoff score were scaled in equal 

intervals from 70 to 100, while the scores below the cutoff score were 

scaled in equal intervals to 0. 

Phase Grades 

The final phase grade is derived from a weighted composite of all phase 

grades, with 5% allocated to academic block tests, 15% to secondary position 

graded laboratory problems, 40% allocated to primary position graded laboratory 

problems and 40% allocated to primary position skills tests. The sum of these 

scores, a weighted composite, i s then converted to a phas e grade . tne weighted 

composite s are calculated according to the following linear combination: 

5% Academic Average (average of all block tests); 

15% Graded laboratory problem averages for Weather Observer, Teletype, 

Broadcast, and Flight Data; 

15% Preflight Laboratory Average (four graded problems); 

15/o Preflight Skills Test Converted Score (Table 19); 

12.5/o Inflight Laboratory Average (four graded problems); 

12.5/o Inflight Skills Test Converted Score (Table 19); 

12.5/o Emergency Services Laboratory Average (four problems); and 

12.5/o Emergency Services Skills Test Converted Score (Table 19). 

- 17-
In order to provide some normative data for future classes, all 

weighted composite scores were computed for classes 78-01 to 9006 

according to the above linear combination. These were standardized using 

the mean (82.84) and standard deviation (4.54) of the weighted composite 

scores (see Table 20). Then they were re-scaled for development of the 

new table for converting weighted composite scores to final Phase Grade 

(Table 21). The desired transformation is: 

Y =5.44 (X-82.84) + 79.44, 

( 4.54 ) 

where X is the weighted composite score and Y is the final phase grade. 

This transformation i dent i f ies 5.1% of the students from the classes 78-01 

to 9006 as scoring below 70, and thus labeled as failures. The scaled 

scores in Table 21 are intended to be used with future Academy classes. 

Failure Criteria 

Two ways to fail Phase 3 are a Position failure and a Phase Grade failure. 

Position failure: A student who fails both the skills test and the laboratory 

problems in the Preflight position or Inflight position or Emergency Services 

position fails the phase. The Phase Grade entry for that student will be the 

word FAIL, with no numerical score. 

Phase Grade failure: A student with a final Phase Grade below 70 fails the 

course. That final grade is derived from a weighted composite of all phase 

grades. 

These are listed in Table 18. 

Table 22 lists all the students from classes 78-01 to 9006 who failed 

at least one of the primary position Skills Tests, or Laboratory problem 

averages or Phase Grade. In all, 38 students or 32.2% of the students failed 

at least one of these. Of these 38 students, six students were Phase Grade 

-18-
Preflight. One student (9004-10) was also identified as a Preflight Position 

failure. Thus, a total of seven students (5.9%) in classes 78-01 to 9006 

would have failed the program using the above criteria. 

Summary of Data, All Variables 

Table 23 , page 44 , presents summary statistics and intercorrelations of 

performance on block tests, graded laboratory problems, and the FSS skills 

tests for the student population in the new training program. Scores on the 

graded laboratory problems for the several positions correlate well with each 

other, and generally higher than the laboratory problems in the old training 

prog ram. The measures of student performance in the training program correlate 

well with the final Phase Grade. This Phase Grade is the best measure present 

here for use in pass-fail determinations. The classroom block test, l a bor a t or y , 

and skills test performances by posi tion correl ate fa i r l y well with each other 

to support their use as a composite, but not as well as the final Phase Grade. 

The Multiplex Controller Aptitude Test, MCAT, a newl y created measure for 

use in initial screening of applicants, correlates .49 with the Phase Grade. 

This test was designed to measure aptitude for the type of work being taught 

in the new training course, and a correlation of this magnitude is a mutually 

supportive indicator. The final Phase Grade is demonstrating a desirably high 

relation to a student's aptitude for this work. Also, those who counsel 

stumbling students during training might use their MCAT scores to see if the 

source of difficulty lies in lack of aptitude for the work. 

Comment 

Instructors generally try to provide a fair and just evaluation of a 

student's performance during the grading of laboratory problems. Fair grading 

practices are expected to continue after the introduction of Pass-Fail in the 

-19-
new training program. The new training program introduces new graded problems, 

but the same instructors must still compare each student's performances against 

a standard of expected performances for evaluation purposes. There is no 

reason to expect any dramatic upsurge in the number of students receiving 

failing grades, or to anticipate a failure rate greatly different from that 

described in the example problem presented here. A good instructor should be 

able to get the subject matter across to most students. There may be a few 

exceptions within specific classes, as some may have a greater-than-normal 

number of weak students and have a higher failure rate. The background 

information on the students in the example problem shows that they were a 

high guality group. 

As the training course is changed and new laboratory problems introduced, 

instructors and evaluators go through a period of learning and adjustment with 

the new materials. Since tne FSS Skills Tests have not been changed and their 

norms are based on a group from operational facilities, it is recommended 

that these tests carry a weight equal to that of the graded laboratory problems 

for making Pass-Fail judgements during this adjustment period. The laboratory 

problem 5% cutoff per position may be obtained by first averaging each student's 

graded laboratory problem results per position, then ranking all the available 

scores and identifying the bottom 5% cutoff. After this is done, following the 

procedure outlined in the above example problem will identify those students 

whose performance is unacceptable. The 5% cutoff for averaged laboratory 

grades will be based on a very small sample at the start, and should be recomputed as the available student sample increases with each new class, so that 

a more stable cutoff may be realized. 

-20-
Activity 

Broadcast 

Teletype 

Weather Observer 

Flight Data 

Preflight 

Inflight 

Emergency Services 

TABLE 1 

MEASUREMENTS AVAILABLE IN PHASE III 

FOR 

PASS-FAIL EVALUATIONS 

Block Tests Achievement Graded Laboratory 

Tests Problems 

1 6 

1 4 

1 3 4 

1 2 

1 3 4 

1 4 

1 4 

-21-

FSS 

Skills 

1 

1 

1 

1 
TABLE 2 

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 

FIELD SAMPLE, OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

Testing Dates 

July-August 1977 

FAA FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS 

AGE IN YEARS 

Interval Number of Persons 

36 & over 164 

31-35 47 

26-30 25 

20-25 5 

No Answer 12 

Education (Highest Attained) 

Level Number of Persons 

Masters Degree 

Bachelor Degree 

College 3-4 years 

2 years 

1 year 

High School Diploma 

No Diploma 

ATCS EXPERIENCE 

Option 

FAA FSS FPL 

GS-2152 FSS Option 

Enroute Option 

Terminal Option 

Before joining FAA 

Pilot Certificate 

3 

40 

47 

48 

43 

69 

3 

(Months) 

None 

20 

5 

128 

207 

145 

~ Number of Persons 

Instructor 18 

Commercial 44 

Private 27 

Student 16 

None 145 

No Answer 3 

1-11 

9 

8 

17 

19 

15 

-22-

12-23 

21 

11 

40 

12 

5 

253 Persons 

SEX 

~ Number of Person~ 

Male 

Female 

221 

27 

No Answer 5 

Current GS Grade 

Level Number of Persons 

12 & up 20 

11 169 

10 40 

9 8 

5-7 10 

No Answer 6 

24-25 36 & UE No Answers 

2"4" 176 3 

23 205 1 

32 30 6 

5 6 4 

14 73 1 

FAA ATC Academy Training 

When Number of Persons 

Graduated 1976-77 31 

1975 or before 93 

Did not attend 124 

No Answer 5 

EFAS Training 

Number of Persons 

Yes 45 

No 206 

No Answer 2 
TABLE 3 

TEST PERFORMANCES 

FIELD SAMPLE, OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

Testing Dates 

July-August 1977 

FAA FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS 

Tests 

ATC Fundamentals- Rights 

100 items 

Preflight Briefing- Rights 

25 items 

Inflight-Negative Scores 

Wrongs- 172 items 

Omissions- 60 items 

Wrongs + Omissions 

Emergency Skills II- Rights weighted 

Major Decisions- 10 items 

Minor Decisions- 7 items 

Phraseology- 12 items 

TOTAL 

-23-

N Mean 

218 74.03 

243 15.22 

229 18.59 

229 23.08 

229 41.58 

253 12.55 

253 .24 

253 4.64 

253 17.43 

253 Pers

Standard Devia

9.96 

2.92 

8.00 

7.48 

11.93 

7.85 

.81 

2.54 

9.97 
TABLE 4 

RELATING TEST PERFORMANCE 

TO 

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 

FIELD SAMPLE, OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

Test Performance Mean Scores 

versus 

Testing Dates 

July-August 1977 253 Persons 

Tests Months Experience, FSS Option 

0-23 14-35 36 & up 

ATC Fundamentals- Rights N= 25 N= 23 N= 205 

100 items 71.84 79.17 77,34 

Preflight Briefing- Rights 

25 items 14,16 15,26 15,85 

Inflight-Negative scores 

Wrongs 20.31 18.70 18.31 

Omissions 31.79 26.65 26,05 

Wrongs + Omissions 47.69 40.20 41.09 

Emergency Skills II- Rights weighted 

Major Decisions 11.76 13.10 13.13 

Phraseology 4.83 5.14 5.03 

Total 16,28 18.38 19,13 

Tests Pilot Experience Levels 

None Student Private Commercial Instructor 

N= 145 N= 16 N= 27 N= 44 N= 18 

ATC Fundamentals- Rights 75.28 76.69 7 5. 37 82.30 82,11 

Preflight Briefing- Rights 15.57 14.50 15.07 16,11 17.11 

Inflight- Negative Scores 

Wrongs plus Omissions 42.33 42.87 .43. 04 39,93 35,13 

Emergency Skills II- Rights weighted 

Total 16.79 16.25 15.81 23.13 20.17 
Testing Dates 

July-August 1977 

TABLE 5 

RELATING TEST PERFORMANCE 

TO 

POPULATION CHARACTERISITCS 

FIELD SAMPLE, OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

FAA FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS 

Tests Present GS Grade Levels 

ATC Fundamentals- Rights 

Preflight Briefing- Rights 

Inflight-Negative Scores 

Wrongs + Omissions 

Emergency Skills II- Total 

Rights Weighted 

5 - 7 

N= 10 

74.60 

14.7 

52.0 

17.5 

9 

N= 8 

82.88 

14.63 

52.8 

19.86 

10 11 

N= 40 N= 169 

75.8 84.5 

14.43 15.97 

42.13 40.91 

18.95 19.29 

253 Persons 

12 & UE 

N= 20 

75.35 

16.60 

41.33 

16.41 

Tests HAD EFAS Trainin8 

ATC Fundamentals- Rights 

Preflight Briefing- Rights 

Inflight-Negative Scores 

Wrongs + Omissions 

Emergency Skills II- Total 

Rights Weighted 

-25-

No Yes 

N= 206 N= 45 

76.76 78.53 

15.60 15.84 

41.69 40.54 

18.49 20.88 
TABLE 6 

RELATING TEST PERFORMANCE 

TO 

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 

FIELD SAMPLE, OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

Testing Dates 

July-August 1977 253 Persons 

Tests 

ATC Fundamentals-Rights 

Preflight Briefing-Rights 

Inflight-Negative Scores 

Wrongs + Omissions 

Emergency Skills II- Total 

Rights Weighted 

Tests 

ATC Fundamentals-Rights 

Preflight Briefing-Rights 

Inflight-Negative Scores 

Wrongs + Omissions 

Emergency Skills II- Total 

Rights Weighted 

Tests 

ATC Fundamentals-Rights 

Preflight Briefing-Rights 

Inflight-Negative Scores 

Wrongs + Omissions 

Emergency Skills II- Total 

Rights Weighted 

Received Academy Training 

Within 

N= 31 

73.77 

14.19 

last year Never More than 

N= 93 N= 124 

75.80 79.06 

15.88 15.90 

45.93 42.25 39.39 

17.27 17.67 20.41 

Does facility have full time EPDS? 

No Yes 

N= 93 N= 158 

77.26 77.05 

15.24 15.91 

42.37 41.10 

18.46 19.17 

Sex of Specialist 

-26-

Male 

N= 221 

77.43 

15.62 

41.61 

19.26 

Female 

N= 27 

76.19 

16.30 

41.90 

18.00 

year ago 
TABLE 7 

INTERCORRELATION OF PAST EXPERIENCE AND PERFORMANCE ON FSS SKILL

FIELD SAMPLE, OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 

Testing Dates Decimals Omitted 

July-August 1977 

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Flight Service Station 

Experience 1 09 44 -08 01 03 -04 -02 56 15 Pilot Experience 2 20 -03 10 -06 -05 -01 11 35 

Age 3 -20 -06 -11 -01 -14 42 15 

Sex 4 -06 -04 08 07 -19 -11 

Education-Grades 

1-15 5 -14 02 15 09 07 

BA, MA 6 08 03 -06 00 

Had EFAS Training? 7 03 -07 -07 

When Academy 

Trained? 8 -OS 15 

GS Grade 9 09 

Fundamentals of 

ATC 10 

Emergency SkillsPhraseology 11 

Minor Errors 12 

Major Decisions 13 

Total Score 14 

Preflight Briefing 15 

Inflight Omissions 16 

Wrongs 17 

-27-
Testing Dates 

TABLE 8 

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 

ATC ACADEMY SAMPLE 

September 1977-February 1978 

Age in Years 

Interval No. of Persons 

36 & over 46 

31 - 35 70 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

26 - 30 116 No answer 

20 - 25 37 

No answer 4 

Education (Highest Attained) 

Level No. of Persons 

Masters Degree 8 

Bachelor's Degree 67 

College 3-4 years 30 

2 years 63 

1 year 44 

High School Diploma 60 

No diploma 

No answer 1 

Option 

ATC Experiences (Months) 

None 1-11 12-23 

FAA GS 2152 FSS FPL 

FSS Options 

Enroute Option 

Terminal Option 

Before joining FAA 

Pilot Certificate 

3 

6 

46 

3 

3 

~ No. of Persons 

Instructor 

Conunercial 

Private 

Student 

None 

-28-

34 

35 

30 

14 

24-25 

1 

39 

6 

21 

273 STUDENTS 

No. of Persons 

21 6 

55 

2 

36 & up 

1 

1 

18 

6 

57 

No answer 
TABLE 9 

XPERIENCE, PERFORMANCES ON FSS SKILLS TESTS, AND LABORATORY GRADES 

ADEMY FLIGHT SERVICE STATION STUDENTS, COURSE 50202 

TRAINING PROGRAM, CLASSES 78-1 THRU 78-8 

Decimals Omitted 

17-273 Persons 

lls Tests Laboratorr Grades Lab Grades 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 N Mn SD 

2 14 15 05 -07 -05 08 00 16 05 20 -03 -11 19 273 4.758 2.682 

9 37 37 37 -41 -15 27 19 29 28 32 -14 -13 51 272 72.960 10.756 

4 87 92 25 -38 -18 66 19 21 31 16 -03 01 39 273 6.828 2.570 

-05 -00 -24 14 -02 00 -58 -11 -30 -26 16 20 -37 273 .099 .537 

99 28 -35 -19 58 12 22 24 17 -03 03 35 273 14.212 9.106 

27 -36 -20 60 12 22 25 16 -02 03 35 273 21.139 11.404 

-42 -08 -02 29 21 20 22 -02 -05 38 272 13.055 2.934 

-08 -43 -11 -17 -16 -16 -04 -09 -32 272 21.746 6.401 

-08 -13 -30 -13 -33 33 31 -38 272 16.978 7.917 

.•. 

66 66 73 73 -54 00 85 17 96.316 2.341 

34 30 37 -14 -18. 63 142 96.601 5.297 

21 31 -14 -19 60 142 96.819 3.333 

15 02 01 54 142 95.716 4.181 

-45 -47 51 142 94.395 5.160 

84 -17 142 1.049 .217 

-17 142 1.035 .185 

142 94.019 3.220 

-29-
100 

99 

98 

97 

96 

95 

94 

93 

92 

91 

90 

89 

88 

87 

86 

85 

84 

83 

82 

81 

80 

79 

78 

77 

TABLE 10 

PREFLIGHT LAB PROBLEM AVERAGES 

ATC ACADEMY STUDENT SAMPLES 

OLD TRAINING COURSE, CLASSES 78-1 thru 78- 8 

NEW TRAINING COURSE, CLASSES 78-01 THRU 9006 

Training Course Training Course 

Old New 

24 

22 

25 

21 

8 

7 

5 

8 

4 1 

3 3 

2 4 

1 3 

2 6 

2 6 

6 4 

8 

1 5 

13 

9 

1 5 

7 

9 

4 

-30-

Old 

76 

75 

74 

73 

72 

71 

70 

69 

68 

67 

66 

65 

64 

63 

62 

61 

60 

59 

58 

57 

56 

55 

54 

53 

52 

N 142 

Mean 95.72 

SD 4.18 

· New 

4 

4 

3 

5 

1 

4 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

118 

80.12 

6.66 
100 

99 

98 

97 

96 

95 

94 

93 

92 

91 

90 

89 

88 

87 

86 

85 

84 

83 

82 

81 

TABLE 11 

INFLIGHT LAB PROBLEM AVERAGES 

ATC ACADEMY STUDENT SAMPLES 

OLD TRAINING COURSE, CLASSES "/ 8-1 THRU 78-8 

NEW TRAINING COURSE, CLASSES 78-01 THRU 9006 

Training Course Training Course 

Old New Old New 

10 80 8 

7 79 4 

17 1 78 2 

17 77 3 

12 2 76 1 2 

14 75 1 

14 1 74 3 

13 1 73 2 

5 2 72 1 1 

5 8 71 3 

5 7 70 2 

5 8 69 1 

6 7 68 

2 5 67 

4 7 66 

2 12 65 1 

1 11 64 

3 63 

10 62 

1 61 

N 142 118 

Mean 94.40 84.36 

SD 5.16 6.12 

-31-
100 

99 

98 

97 

96 

95 

94 

93 

92 

91 

90 

89 

88 

87 

86 

85 

84 

TABLE 12 

EMERGENCY SERVICES LAB PROBLEM AVERAGES 

ATC AGADEMY STUDENT SAMPLES 

OLD TRAINING COURSE, CLASSES 78-01 THRU 9006 

Training Course Training Course 

Old New Old New 

83 3 

82 2 

1 81 5 

3 80 2 

4 79 

5 78 1 

5 77 4 

6 76 1 

7 75 2 

10 74 1 

6 73 

11 72 

5 71 2 

9 70 1 

9 69 

6 68 

6 67 1 

Fail (2 .0) 7 

Pass (1.0) 135 

N 142 118 

Mean 1.049 87.69 

SD .217 6.30 

-32-
TABLE 13 

DISTRIBUTION& Of TEST SCORES 

PREFLIGHT BRIEFING SKILLS TEST 

OPERATIONAL FACILITY AND STUDENT SAMPLES 

OLD TRAINING COURSES SAMPLES 78-01 THRU 78-8 

NEW TRAINING COURSE SAMPLES 78-01 THRU 9006 

PREFLIGHT OPERATIONAL STUDENT SAMPLES 

TEST FACILITY TRAINING COURSE 

SCORES SAMPLE Old New 

22 2 2 

21 3 1 1 

20 6 1 2 

19 20 2 6 

18 24 7 10 

17 30 15 13 

16 34 29 12 

15 35 41 18 

14 27 32 16 

13 17 38 8 

12 17 35 10 

11 12 19 7 

10 7 16 7 

9 6 12 2 

8 1 14 1 

7 1 2 1 

6 1 7 1 

5 1 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

No Response 10 1 

Total N 253 273 118 

Mean 15.22 13.055 14.64 

SD 9.97 2.934 3.08 

-33-
TABLE 14 

DISTRIBUTION OF TEST SCORES 

INFLIGHT SKILLS !EST 

OPERATIONAL FACILITY AND STUDENT SAMPLES 

ATC ACADEMY CLASSES 78-1 THRU 78-8 

0Eerationa1 Faci1itl SamE1e ATC Academy Students 

Inflight Wrongs omissions 'Wrongs+Omissions 'Wrongs Omissions Wrongs+ 

Scores Omissio

73 1 

70 1 

69 1 1 

68 

67 

66 1 1 

65 1 

64 1 3 

63 1 

62 3 1 2 

61 1 2 

60 5 

59 4 2 

58 2 

57 1 3 

56 1 2 

55 5 2 

54 2 3 

53 4 3 

52 6 1 

51 4 2 

50 4 2 

49 5 5 

48 1 11 1 4 

47 5 1 5 

46 7 7 

45 6 12 

44 1 6 1 8 

43 2 1 8 2 1 14 

42 7 1 4 

41 1 7 14 

40 3 4 9 1 9 

39 1 1 10 11 

38 2 4 14 1 8 

37 2 6 3 5 13 

36 1 4 9 1 1 16 

35 1 1 14 1 1 8 

34 9 15 1 14 

33 3 2 7 1 5 14 

32 2 2 9 1 2 9 

31 3 8 8 4 5 9 

30 2 6 3 1 7 9 

29 4 11 7 3 7 14 

28 3 3 2 4 9 8 

27 4 11 2 5 7 8 

26 1 10 3 5 11 4 

34 
TABLE 14 CONTINUED 

DISTRIBUTION OJ< TEST SCORES 

INFLIGHT SKILLS TEST 

OPERATIONAL FACILITY AND STUDENT SAMPLES 

ATC ACADEMY CLASSES 78-1 THRU 78-8 

02erational Facilitl Sam2les ATC Academy Students 

Inflight Wrongs Omissions Wrongs+Omissions ~.J'rongs Omissions Wrongs+ 

Scores Omissions 

25 7 10 1 7 7 4 

24 7 8 6 12 3 

23 12 10 9 17 1 

22 8 11 2 10 14 2 

21 13 13 5 23 3 

20 6 15 9 16 

19 9 20 11 26 

18 12 6 10 20 

17 14 11 15 18 

16 11 8 20 18 

15 18 11 15 10 

14 15 11 18 10 

13 12 2 18 5 

12 13 3 17 6 

11 12 5 16 4 

10 10 1 21 

9 6 3 7 

8 1 9 

7 3 1 7 

6 3 3 

5 2 3 

4 1 

3 1 

2 

1 1 

0 

No 

Response 24 2.4 24 1 1 1 

Total N 253 253 253 273 273 273 

Mean 18.59 23.08 41.576 16.978 21.746 38.794 

SD 8.00 7.48 11.926 7.917 6.401 9.753 

-35-
TABLE 1'5 

DISTRIBUTION OF TEST SCORES 

INFLIGHT SKILLS TEST-WRONGS+ OMISSIONS 

OPERATIONAL FACILITY AND STUEENT SAMPLES 

Operational Training Program Operational Training Program 

Facility Old New Facility Old New 

75 40 9 9 

74 39 10 11 

73 1 38 14 8 

72 37 6 13 

71 36 9 16 

70 1 35 14 8 3 

69 1 1 34 15 14 2 

68 33 7 14 3 

67 32 9 9 

66 1 1 31 8 9 1 

65 1 30 3 9 3 

64 1 3 29 7 14 2 

63 1 28 2 8 6 

62 3 2 27 2 8 2 

61 1 2 26 3 4 4 

60 5 25 1 4 7 

59 4 2 24 3 3 

58 2 23 1 7 

57 1 3 22 2 2 9 

56 1 2 21 3 10 

55 5 2 20 11 

54 2 3 19 5 

53 4 3 18 5 

52 6 1 17 8 

51 4 2 16 1 

50 4 2 15 8 

49 5 5 14 3 

48 11 4 13 7 

47 5 5 12 1 

46 7 7 11 1 

45 6 12 10 2 

44 6 8 9 1 

43 8 14 8 

42 7 4 7 1 

41 7 14 6 

5 1 

4 

N 253 273 118 

Mean 41.576 38.794 21.10 

SD 11.926 9.753 6.31 

36 
DISTRIBUTION OF TEST SCORES EMERGENCY SERVICES 

SKILLS TEST 

OPERATIONAL FACILITY AND STUDENT SAMPLES 

Operational Facility Sam~le ATC Academy Students 

Emergency Total Major Phraseo- Minor Totals Major Phraseo- Minor 

Services Decision Error Decisions logy Error 

Scores 

42 11 

41 1 5 

40 1 13 

39 2 2 

38 1 1 

37 2 2 

36 2 4 

35 2 8 

34 1 2 

33 6 2 

32 2 1 

31 8 

30 5 9 8 31 

29 4 3 

28 6 31 

27 10 7 

26 8 4 

25 6 18 4 20 

24 3 1 

23 5 9 

22 5 15 

21 13 10 

20 18 39 6 53 

19 11 3 

18 5 

17 5 7 

16 6 24 

15 18 63 13 45 

14 8 3 

13 14 1 

12 8 1 1 13 

11 2 9 9 

10 3 52 7 11 48 32 

9 5 7 12 9 8 4 20 6 43 

7 16 20 3 33 6 8 40 3 so 5 1 42 46 11 47 40 4 1 28 7 22 

3 5 27 20 2 9 9 2 3 29 4 7 1 8 2 4 

0 19 30 20 233 2 29 2 264 

No 

Response 0 

Total N 253 273 

Mean 17.43 12.55 4.64 ,24 21.139 14.212 6.828 ,099 

SD 9,97 7.85 2.54 . 81 -37-11.404 9,106 2.570 ,537 
TABLE 17 

DISTRIBUTION OF TEST SCORES EMERGENCY SERVICES 

SKILLS TEST 

OPERATIONAL FACILITY AND STUDENT SAMPLES 

Operational Training Program Operational Training Progr

Facility Old New Facility Old New 

42 11 18 20 18 6 

41 1 5 3 19 11 3 

40 1 13 8 18 5 1 

39 2 2 2 17 5 7 

38 1 1 1 16 6 24 

37 2 2 4 15 18 13 

36 2 4 6 14 8 3 1 

35 2 8 12 13 14 1 1 

34 1 2 4 12 8 1 1 

33 6 2 6 11 2 9 

32 2 1 10 3 11 

31 8 2 9 5 12 

30 5 8 6 8 4 6 

29 4 3 3 7 16 3 2 

28 6 31 15 6 8 3 1 

27 10 7 4 5 1 11 1 

26 8 4 4 1 7 

25 6 4 1 3 5 2 

24 3 1 2 2 3 4 

23 5 9 3 1 2 

22 5 15 5 0 19 2 

21 13 10 5 

N 253 273 118 

Mean 17.43 21.39 31.86 

SD 9.97 11.404 9.28 

38 
Skills Test 

Preflight 

Inflight 

:Emergency 

Services 

Laboratory 

Preflight 

Inflight 

:Emergency 

Services 

TABLE 18 

CUTOFF SCORES FOR SKILLS TEST AND 

LABORATORY GRADES FOR ATC ACADEMY STUDENTS FROM 

CLASSES 78-01, 78-02, 

9001 to 9006 

N = 118 

Type of Scores Cutoff Students Below Cutoff 

Rights 

Negative: Wrongs 

plus omissions 

Rights 

Average 

Average 

Average 

Less than 11 

Greater than 

32 

Less than 15 

Less than 70 

Less than 72 

Less than 76 

39 

Number 

12 

8 

1 

8 

6 

1 

Percent 

10.2 

6.8 

5.9 

6.8 
TABLE 19 

' TABLE FOR TRANSFORMING SKILLS TEST 

RAW SCORES TO CONVERTED SCORES 

Raw Scores Converted Scores 

Preflight Inflight Emergency Services 

(Negative Scores) 

42 100 

41 to Zero 99 

40 98 

39 63 96 

38 64 95 

37 65 94 

36 66 93 

35 67 92 

34 68 91 

33 69 90 

32 10 89 

31 71 88 

30 72 87 

29 73 85 

28 74 84 

27 75 83 

26 76 82 

25 100 11 81 

24 91 78 80 

23 94 19 19 

22 92 80 78 

21 90 81 11 

20 88 82 76 

19 86 83 74 

18 84 84 73 

17 82 85 72 

16 80 86 71 

15 78 87 10 

14 76 88 65 

13 74 89 61 

12 72 90 56 

11 10 91 51 

10 64 92 46 

9 57 93 42 

8 51 94 37 

1 44 95 32 

6 38 96 28 

5 32 91 23 

4 25 98 19 

3 19 98 14 

2 12 99 10 

1 6 99 5 

0 0 100 0 

40 
TABLE 20 

DISTRIBUTION OF PHASE GRADES FOR CLASSES 78-01 to 9006 

Weighted Composite Scores Frequency 

94.01 - 95 0 

93.01 - 94 1 

92.01 - 93 0 

91.01 - 92 3 

90.01 - 91 0 

89.01 - 90 6 

88.01 - 89 4 

87.01 - 88 8 

86.01 - 87 7 

85.01 - 86 13 

84.01 - 85 9 

83.01 - 84 9 

82.01 - 83 11 

81.01 - 82 9 

80.01 - 81 8 

79.01 - 80 6 

78.01 - 79 5 

77.01 - 78 8 

76.01 - 77 1 

75.01 - 76 4 

74.01 - 75 2 

73.01 - 74 2 

72.01 - 73 0 

71.01 - 72 2 

70.01 - 71 0 

41 
TABLE 21 

TABLE FOR CONVERTING WEIGHTED COMPOSITE SCORES 

TO 

PHASE GRADES 

Wei ghted Composite Phase Grade Weighted Composite 

Score Score 

100 100 

99.17 - 99.99 99 81.67 - 82.49 

98.33 - 99.16 98 80.83 - 81.66 

97.50 - 98.32 97 80.00 - 80.82 

96.67 - 97.49 96 79.17 - 79.99 

95.83 - 96.66 95 78.33 - 79.16 

95.00 - 95.82 94 77.50 - 78.32 

94.17 - 94.99 93 76.67 - 77.49 

93.33 - 94.16 92 75.83 - 76.66 

92.50 - 93.32 91 75.00 - 75.82 

91.67 - 92.49 90 74.17 - 74.99 

90.83 - 91.66 89 73.33 - 74.16 

90.00 - 90.82 88 72.50 - 73.32 

89.17 - 89.99 87 71.67 - 72.49 

88.33 - 89.16 86 70.83 - 71.66 

87.50 - 88.32 85 70.00 - 70~82 

86.67 - 87.49 84 69.17 - 69.99 

85.83 - 86.66 83 68.33 - 69.16 

85.00 - 85.82 82 67.50 - 68.32 

84.17 - 84.99 81 66.67 - 67.49 

83.33 - 84.16 80 65.83 - 66.66 

82.50 - 83.32 79 65.00 - 65.82 

Below 65 

42 

Phase Grad

78 

77 

76 

75 

74 

73 

72 

71 

70 

69 

68 

67 ' 

66 

65 

64 

63 

62 

61 

60 

59 

58 

57 
TABLE 22 

ATC ACADEMY STUDENTS FROM CLASSES 78-01, 78-02, 9001 to 9006 

FAILING PRIMARY POSITION SKILLS TEST OR LABORATORY PROBLEMS 

OR 

FINAL P~ASE GRADE 

Skills Test Laboratory New Phase Type 

Student PF 1! ~ PF 1! ~ ~ Failure 

78-01 1 69 

9 68 Phase Grade 

78-02 1 34 

8 10 35 

9001 2 35 5 69 Phase Grade 

3 33 

4 10 

6 33 67.3 

8 9 

11 10 

12 70 

13 8 33 70.3 65 Phase Grade 

14 9 

16 67.2 

9002 1 10 

11 34 

9003 2 6 

4 70.25 69 Phase Grade 

9004 1 67.75 

3 7 

10 10 68.50 Position 

11 13 

9005 6 71.5 

7 75 

9 75.5 

11 7 71.25 

13 52.75 69 68 Phase Grade 

14 7 

15 10 14 

9006 1 73.75 

3 35 

4 10 

PhPosiciog & 5 6 67.50 71,.00 66 ase ra e 

7 71.00 

10 69.50 

12 12 56.50 

13 

14 71.50 

Totals 12 8 7 8 b T 6 

43 
TABLE 23 

INTERCORRELATIONS OF PHASE III TESTS, NEW TRAINING PR

CLASSES 78-01 t o 9006 

Variable 2 10 11 12 1 1 

Weather Obser 1 45 35 20 51 30 36 69 56 17 26 25 39 24 25 14 -14 -30 

Teletype 2 31 24 29 17 28 64 43 39 21 43 53 23 38 29 12 -11 -32 

Broadcast 3 19 39 25 24 58 28 16 40 16 29 28 15 28 14 -03 -13 

Flight Data 4 25 20 19 52 23 18 36 41 38 18 17 33 24 -15 -06 

Preflight 5 44 52 77 54 -01 37 24 20 30 28 35 35 -25 -17 

Inflight 6 24 58 27 05 22 16 18 19 24 25 05 -25 00 

Emergency Serv 7 66 32 -11 21 25 17 21 33 42 31 -12 -07 

Academic Ave- 8 59 19 43 42 51 37 42 50 31 -24 -24 

Weather Ob Lab 9 27 37 40 64 27 31 39 27 -36 -29 

Teletype Lab 10 22 42 77 21 15 04 -03 -02 -11 

Broadcast Lab 11 38 55 43 39 35 19 -25 -14 

Flight Data Lab12 80 29 33 29 15 -16 -10 

Laboratory Ave 13 40 39 33 19 -22 -23 

Preflight Lab 14 52 33 23 00 -05 

Inflight Lab 15 46 31 01 -18 

Emer Serv Lab 16 35 -19 -27 

Preflight Test 17 -26 -10 

Omissions 18 01 

Wrongs 19 

Inflight Test 20 

Emer Serv Test 21 

MCAT 22 

OKT 23 

Total(MCAT-OKT)24 

Grade 25 

-44-