TECHNICAL REPORl STANDARD TITL~ PAGE . 1. R.,port No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

FAA-AM-11-30 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

ATTITUDES AND MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS IN TERMINAL July 1971 

6. Performing Organi zotion Code 

AREA AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL WORK 

7. Awtherls) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Roger c. Smith, Ph.D., Bart B. Cobb, M.S., 

and William E. Collins Ph.D. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. 

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute 

P. 0. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine OAM Report 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, s.w. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Washington D. c. 20590 

15. Supplementary Notes 

This study was done under 

AM-A-71-PSY-20. 

Tasks AM-B-69-PSY-2, AM-A-70-PSY-2, AM-B-71-PSY-2, and 

16. Abstract 

A sample of 614 journeymen terminal ATCSs at 17 high-density IFR airports, 

and 514 ATC trainees were administered a questionnaire which asked them to 

list what they liked best and what they liked least about. ATC work in general; 

in addition, ATCSs made similar lists for work at their assigned facilities. 

Responses were surveyed for clusters, and nine response categories were 

established. The frequency of responses within each category was tabulated. 

With minor variations the pattern of responses from ATCSs was highly similar 

from one facility to another. The categories of job challenge, job tasks, 

career characteristics, and salary contained the most positive responses about 

ATC work, while the categories of management, work schedule, career characteristics, and job tasks had the most negative responses. Trainee attitude patterns were similar. ATCS responses for likes at facilities were most frequently 

about job tasks, facilities, peers, and job challenge; dislikes focused on 

facilities, management, job tasks, and work schedules. No relatiopships 

between attitudes and age, experience, or level of job performance were found. 

There was a high degree of similarity between these findings and results 

obtained in motivational studies of other professions. 

17. Key Wards 18. Di stri but ion Statement 

Air Traffic Control Availability is unlimited. Document may Job Attitudes be released to the National Technical 

Job Motivation Information Service, Springfield, Personnel Virginia 22151, for sale to the pub lie. 

Psychology -- 19. Security Clauif. (of this report) 20. Security Classi f. (of this page) ~1. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified $3.00 

Form DOT F 1700.7 !8•691 
TRAFFIC CONTROL WORK 

I. Introduction. 

The major focus of much of the previous research dealing with air traffic control (A TC) 

personnel has been concerned with the identification of factors associated with performance 

during training, career progress, and degree 

of job proficiency of journeyman-level controllers.e.g., 1 56 However, relatively little consideration has been given to determining formally 

the prevailing attitudes and motivations of ATC 

personnel with respect to their work and job 

environment, or the extent to which such factors 

bear upon job performance. Such information 

concerning controller attitudes may be of considerable relevance to recruitment, selection, and 

retention programs. The present study represents one approach to describing the nature, incidence, and intensity of such attitudes and their 

relationship to measures of job performance, experience, and age. 

II. Procedure. 

Subjects. The basic sample of ATC personnel 

included 614 journeyman-level Terminal Area 

Traffic Control Specialists ( ATCSs) \Vorking at 

17 high IFR-density airports. Chronological age 

for this group ranged from 27 to 64 years with a 

mean of 36.5 years. Experience as an ATCS 

with the FAA ranged from 27 to 393 months 

and averaged 159.0 months (13.25 years). The 

data from these ATCSs were collected from November 1968 through February 1969. Age and 

experience distributions appear in Appendix 1. 

In order to provide some indication of the 

motivation and attitudes of individuals presently 

entering the air traffic control profession, a sample of 514 ATC trainees was also included in 

this study. They were examined upon their entry 

Assistance rendered by Terry LaZar, Karen Freeman, 

and Sharon Bowles during the conduct of this study is 

gratefully acknowledged. 

1 

into nine weeks of basic training at the FAA 

Academy in Oklahoma City during February and 

March 1970. These students ranged in age from 

20 to 51 years with a mean age of 28.67 years, 

and all but a few had been recently hired and appointed to the position of ATC trainee. Most 

were either former military tower controllers, or 

possessed other types and amounts of pre-employment ATC-related experience. However, 

this experience was not considered in the subsequent analyses, since it was largely outside of 

the FAA system. 

Questionnaire. Attitude and motivational responses were obtained through a questionnaire, 

which was administered with a variety of other 

testing devices designed to provide data for a 

comprehensive study of factors bearing upon 

training performance and, later, on job performance. (Findings relating to the latter aspects 

of the study will be presented in subsequent reports.) Each ATCS was given a simple questionnaire (Appendix 2) in which he was asked to 

provide four types of responses, viz., what he 

liked best and what he liked least about (a) ATC 

work in general and (b) ATC work at his specific 

facility. It was requested that the comments be 

relatively brief, listed in rank order, and that 

no more than three be made in response to each 

of these four sections. Following the fourth 

section, an additional section was provided with 

instructions to "briefly list any problem areas, 

recommendations, or comments" desired. The 

questionnaire for the ATC trainees differed from 

the questionnaire administered the ATCSs in that 

those sections dealing with likes and dislikes at 

specific facilities were omitted, since the trainees 

did not have sufficient experience at a facility to 

make meaningful judgments. In other respects, 

the questionnaires were identical. 

Scoring. As noted above, the participants had 

been requested to make only three statements in 
y

For purposes of data reduction, all statements 

were examined to establish response clusters. 

This procedure produced nine response categories, 

and each statement was then assigned to one, 

and only one, of the nine categories. A summary 

description of the categories, which includes the 

nature and type of responses as well as typical 

verbatim statements for each is presented in Appendix 3. 

Two methods were used to estimate the relative 

importance which a respondent attached to each 

of his statements. Derivation of the first measure originated with the printed instructions to 

order "likes" and "dislikes" from most-to-least 

important. As each statement was categorized, 

its position was recorded and used as a multiplicative weight to establish an index of its importance 

(i.e., an ATCS's first, second, and third responses were assigned a weighted score of 3, 2, 

and 1, respectively). 

A second measure of response importance was 

obtained by having two judges rate _the "intensity" of each statement by an ATCS on a twopoint scale. Any response which was considered 

to be a matter-of-fact statement or a simple, unelal_Jorated description of attitude was assigned 

a rating of "1," while statements which presumably reflected strong feelings (due to the nature 

of the descriptor words involved or the length 

and elaborateness of the statement) were rated 

"2." The judges' ratings agreed on 5,559 (98.3 

per cent) of the 5,654 responses made by the 

ATCSs. Differences between raters for the remaining 95 statements "\vere resolved by a third 

judge. Because of the extremely high agreement 

between judges, only a single judge was used for 

the ratings of ATC trainee statements. 

III. Results. 

Responsiveness: "Likes.-Dislikes" 

Respondent Index. Participation in the attitude survey was not a mandatory feature of the 

larger study of which it was a part; however, a 

relatively high proportion of the ATCSs at each 

of the 17 facilities responded to all four sections 

relating to the positive and negative aspects of 

ATC work. At 13 of the facilities, from 71 to 

2 

p

the four questions, and while the ATCSs at the 

remaining two facilities were clearly least responsive of all, no less than 55 per cent of them 

provided at least one statement per section. Summary data for the combined facilities (Table 1) 

revealed that 80 to 84 per cent of the 614 ATCSs 

submitted at least one response under each of 

the four likes-dislikes sections. Eighty per cent 

of the 614 ATCSs responded to the "dislikes in 

general" section and a slightly higher percentage 

( 82 per cent) submitted one or more statements 

reflecting "likes in general." Although different 

levels of responsiveness were obtained at the 17 

facilities surveyed, the percentages of ATCSs responding to these two categories were remarkably 

similar for each respective facility. At no facility did the difference between the proportions 

exceed 10 per cent. At 11 facilities, the ACTSs 

were slightly more responsive to the "likes in 

general" section than to the "dislikes in general" 

section, at three facilities the opposite was true, 

and at each of the remaining three there was no 

difference. 

Similarly, there was little difference between 

the overall number of respondents to "likes at 

facility" ( 82 per cent) as compared with "dislikes at facility" ( 84 per cent). At only one 

facility did the number of respondents in these 

two categories differ by more than 10 per cent 

(59 per cent "likes" to 78 per cent "dislikes", 

Facility C; Appendix 4). Among the 17 facilities, 

eight had an equal number of ATCSs in the two 

categories, seven had slightly more resondents to 

"dislikes" than to "likes," and at two facilities, 

there were more ATCSs citing "likes" than "dislikes" (Appendix 4). 

An overall comparison of the ATCSs with 

the ATC trainees was not possible since the latter 

were not required to respond to the sections of 

the questionnaire concerned with likes and dislikes at their present facility. However, the 

trainees ( 97 per cent) were even more responsive 

than the A TOSs ( 82 per cent) in citing "likes in 

general"; this difference between the groups was 

statistically significant, p< .01. (These and all 

subsequent tests for the significance of differences 

between percentages of responses were made using the chi -square statistic.) In contrast, fewer 
% Submitting One % Submitted of 

or More Statements Total Possible Statements 

Facility 

Range 

Category Subjects N (%) 

Likes in ATCSs 614 55-100 

general Trainees 514 

Dislikes in ATCSs 614 62-96 

general Trainees 514 

Likes at ATCSs 614 57-97 

facility 

Dislikes at ATCSs 614 60-100 

facility 

trainees (72 per cent) responded to the "dislikes about ATC work in general" item than did 

ATCSs (80 per cent); this differences was also 

statistically significant, p < .01. 

Total Responses Index. An additional index 

of the responsiveness to the likes-dislikes sections 

of the questionnaire was obtained by dividing the 

total number of responses by three times the 

number of individuals surveyed at each facility. 

Inasmuch as three statements had been requested 

for each section, the quotient represented the percentage of the desired number of responses which 

were actually elicited. The resulting percentages 

(Table 1 and Appendix 5) were lower than those 

obtained by the method noted earlier since many 

individuals submitted only one or two statements 

rather than the three which were requested. 

Nevertheless, the similarity in the rank ordering 

of the facilities, according to the percentages obtained by the two methods, was striking; Spearman coefficients of correlation between the rank 

orders of the percentages were .95 for "likes in 

general," .93 for "dislikes in general," .88 for 

"dislikes at the facility," and .84 for "likes at 

the facility." All of these correlations were 

highly significant, p<.Ol. Thus, as might be 

anticipated, facilities with a relatively high percentage of respondents tended to give more multi3 

Facility 

Mean Range Mean 

(%) N (%) (%) 

82 1842 44-85 69 

97 1542 93 

80 1842 53-84 66 

72 1542 43 

82 1842 41-86 70 

84 1842 48-92 74 

ple responses than did facilities with a relatively 

low percentage of respondents. 

Moreover, there were almost no differences, 

overall, between the percentages obtained of total 

possible responses (Table 1) for "likes in general" ( 69 per cent) compared with "dislikes in 

general" ( 66 per cent), and for "likes at facility" 

(70 per cent) compared with "dislikes at facility" (74 per cent). In fact, 13 facilities had 

slightly more "likes in general" statements than 

"dislikes in general," three facilities had more 

of the latter, while the remaining facility had 

an equal number in each of these two categories; 

at no facility did the differences between these 

two categories exceed 10 per cent (Appendix 5). 

In the same regard, the trainees showed a considerable difference (Table 1) between the number of statements referring to "likes in general" 

(93 per cent of the number possible) and those in~ 

dicating "dislikes in general" (only 43 per cent 

of the number possible). The difference favoring 

"likes in general" was considerably greater for 

the trainees under this index of responsiveness 

than under the "Respondent Index" outlined 

earlier. 

At six facilities, "likes at facility" statements 

were more frequent than "dislikes at facility"; 

the opposite was the case at 10 other facilities, 
ferences between facility likes and dislikes which 

exceeded 10 per cent in seven cases; at five of 

these facilities, statements about dislikes occurred 

more often ( 11 to 28 per cent) than statements 

about likes, whereas at the other two facilities ' t~er.e were more likes ( 13 to 15 per cent) than 

d1shkes expressed (Appendix 5). Although 

these differences suggest the possibility of a pattern (e.g., a possible relationship to the perceived 

quality of working conditions) among the facilities in question, later analyses revealed none 

(see Appendices 10 and 11). 

Responsiveness: "Comments" 

In general, the ATCSs were less responsive to 

the last section of the questionnaire (in which 

they were asked to list problem areas, recommendations, or comments) than they were to any 

of the four likes-dislikes items. The percentages 

of ATCSs, by facility, who submitted one or 

more responses ranged from 43-77 per cent (see 

Appendix 6). Fifty-seven per cent of the entire 

group provided at least one comment but all of 

the responses totaled only 574, an average of approximately one per subject. Only 12 per cent of 

the newly-hired ATC trainees submitted one or 

more comments. This difference between the 

proportions of ATCSs and ATC trainees whoresponded was statistically significant. (p < .01). 

the likes in general statements (as well a

the "Comments" and the other likes-dislikes 

tions), the number of responses in each o

nine previously-established response categ

was converted to a percentage of the total 

ber of statements submitted (regardless of 

gory) for that facility. The procedure 

successively employed to obtain an array of 

centages for each facility (Appendix 7) and 

for the entire group of facilities (Figure 1

The category ranking highest across al

cilities was "Job Challenge" which accounte

42.7 per cent of all statements concerninO' "

b 

about ATC work in general." "Job Ta

emerged second, with 17.9 per cent, a signific

lower value than that obtained for the hig

ranked category. The next two categories 

significantly lower percentages than the first 

They were "Career Characteristics" and 

ary, " w1 'th percentages of 13.3 and 11.0, re

tively. As a group, the remaining five categ

accounted for only about 15 per cent of the 

"likes in general" statements. 

There was relatively little divergence am

facilities in the rank order of their likes. T

the data presented in Figure 1 are reason

representative of any single facility. Spear

rank correlations between the rankings at 

separate facility and the ranking for the e

BEST LIKE About ATC Work 

IN GF:NF.RAL 

LEAST LIKE About ATC Work BEST LIKE About ATC Work LEAST LIKE About ATC W0rk Prob lt'mS, RL'commenda

and/or Comments Cit

Job Cha l h• nge 

Job T<~sks 

Caro:cr 

Characteri~t h:s 

Salary 

w,,rk Schedult· 

Pl'l't".S 

Misct•llam·nus 

Faci litics 

Management 

Pl·r Rank 

Ct•nt of '?, 

42.7 

17.9 

13.1 

t 1.0 

4.6 

4. J 

2 .9 

2.8 

0. 5 

IN GENERAL AT FACILITY of Assignmt:nt AT FACILITY uf Assignment 

Pt•r Rank 

CL·nt of ! 

7.4 7 

12.1 4 

16.1 

8.' 6 

21.3 2 

2.2 8 

0.4 q 

8. 7 5 

23.5 

Pt•r RJ.nk 

CL·nt of i. 

11.8 4 

29.7 ' 

4.' 6 

3.4 7,5 

J .4 7,5 

15.1 J 

t.5 9 

23.1 2 

5.7 5 

Pl•r Rank 

Cl·nt (\f 'l, 

0. 7 

! 5.9 

3.9 

0.8 

12.6 

4.' 

3.4 

]0 .8 

27.8 

PC'r 

C('nt 

0. 2 

7.3 

21.3 

6.6 

8.0 

3.0 

1.7 

16.5 

35.4 

FIGURE 1. Frequency distributions (in percentages) and rankings of categorized responses made by the AT

4 
infrequently mentioned categories. However, 

these two facilities were similar to the group in 

that "Job Challenge," "Job Tasks," and "Career 

Characteristics" were ranked first, second, and 

third, respectively. 

Among the nine response categories, two of 

them ("Job Tasks" and "Career Characteristics") 

included statements which could be assigned to 

sub-categories. Of the 210 responses assigned 

to the "Job Tasks" category, 96 (42 per cent) 

pertained to positive attitudes toward work with 

aircraft and aviation, while 61 responses (about 

27 per cent) reflected the appeal of constantly 

changing situations. The remaining 31 per cent 

included miscellaneous positive comments about 

job tasks. Of 169 statements classified under 

"Career Characteristics,'' 36 per cent were concerned with the respect and prestige which is 

Comparison of ATOSs with Trainees. While 

the arrays of percentages reflecting the rankordered and categorized "likes in general" responses of the ATCSs and trainee groups were 

generally similar, as reflected in a moderately 

high and statistically significant (p<.05) Spearman rank correlation . of .77 between the two 

groups, there were several instances in which 

the two controller groups differed rather markedly in regard to the proportion of responses 

classified under specific categories. "Job Challenge" was first in rank order for both groups 

but accounted for only 29.6 per cent of the ATC 

trainees' responses, whereas 42.7 per cent of the 

ATCSs' statements were assigned to this category. (Categorized percentages for trainees are 

presented in Figure 2.) "Career Characteristics," 

which ranked second and accounted for 26.4 per 

BEST LIKE About ATC Work 

IN GENERAL 

LEAST LIKE About ATC Work 

IN GENERAL 

Problems, Recommendations 

and/or Comments Cited 

Job Challenge 

Career 

Characteristics 

Salary 

Job Tasks 

Peers 

Facilities 

Management 

Work Schedule 

Miscellaneous 

Per 

Cent 

29.6 

26.4 

15.7 

12.4 

6.0 

5.3 

2.4 

1.7 

0.5 

Rank 

Order 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Per 

Cent 

7.0 

10.3 

2.8 

13.6 

2.5 

11.2 

20.7 

31.9 

0.0 

Rank 

Order 

6 

5 

7 

3 

8 

4 

2 

9 

Per 

Cent 

0.0 

9.2 

5.3 

9.2 

1.3 

13. 1 

46.1 

15.8 

0.0 

Rank 

Order 

8.5 

4.5 

6 

4.5 

7 

3 

2 

8.5 

FIGURE 2. Frequency distributions (in percentages) and rankings of categorized responses made by the ATO 

trainees. 

5 
third and fourth among trainees, and fourth 

and second, respectively, among ATCSs. All of 

these between-groups differences were statistically 

significant (p < .01). Nevertheless, "Job Challenge," "Career Characteristics," "Salary" and 

"Job Tasks" represented the four highest ranked 

categories for both samples and, when considered 

as a group, accounted for 84 per cent of the 

trainees' responses and 85 per cent of the statements submitted by ATCSs. 

About 22 per cent of the trainees' comments 

in regard to "Career Characteristics" pertained, 

like those of the ATCSs, to the prestige associated with ATC work. However, various aspects of job development and security were 

viewed as even more important and accounted 

for about 52 per cent of the statements in this 

category. Under "Job Tasks," the trainees were 

again like experienced personnel in citing "contact with aircraft and aviation" as a major positive aspect of ATC work. 

"Dislike's in General" Section 

ATOSs. The two categories receiving the most 

statements concerning general dislikes were 

"Management," which accounted for 23.5 per cent, 

and "\Vork Schedule," which included 21.3 per 

cent of the responses to this section (Figure 1). 

These two categories, which were essentially 

equal in the frequency with which they were 

cited, were followed in order by "Career Characteristics" and "Job Tasks" with percentages 

of 16.1 and 12.3, respectively. Both of these percentages were significantly lower (p<.01) than 

those for the highest two categories, while the 

percentage 'of statements in the "Job Tasks" 

category was significantly lower (p < .05) than 

that for the "Career Characteristics" category. 

None of the remaining categories included as 

much as 10 per cent of the responses. 

Of the responses in the most frequently cited 

category, "J\ianagement," 36 per cent were concerned with what the ATCSs viewed as inadequate or poor quality management, while 17 per 

cent of the responses focused on the shortage of 

trained air controllers, and 16 per cent of the 

statements mentioned dissatisfaction with policymaking procedures. Under the category of 

6 

gram. Within the category of Job Tasks

per cent of the responses expressed dissati

tion with the procedures required in ATC o

tions, 27 per cent reflected dislike of extra d

which were not directly related to air traffic 

trol, and 22 per cent of the statements menti

problems in relations between controllers 

pilots. 

As previously found for the "likes in gen

section, the rank-orders of percentages o

sponses- to the "dislikes in general" item 

ATCSs at the different facilities were gene

similar to each other (Appendix 8) and to 

rank-order for the combined ATCS group. 

the rank-correlations were significant, and 

two fell beow .80 (Appendix 12). 

Oompan'son of ATOSs with Trainees. 

though, as noted previously, the ATC tra

tended to make fe,ver statements in the "dis

in general" section than did ATCSs, the 

orders of the response categories (accordin

number of statements) were very simila

shown by the significant Spearman rank cor

tion of .92 (p<.01). In comparing the 

groups (Figures 1 and 2), only three betw

group differences were significant: trainees 

proportionally fewer responses pertainin

"Salary" and to "Career Charactristics" (p < 

and more relating to "\Vork Schedules" (p<

than did A TCSs. 

Within the first ranked category of "v

Schedule" and the second ranked categor

"Facilities," most of the trainee dislikes we

a general nature, and did not fall into cl

defined sub-categories. On the other h

within the second-ranked category of "Man

ment," 31 per cent of the responses menti

perceived deficiencies in facility ATC tra

programs, while 28 per cent of the statem

centered upon difficulties in obtaining as

ments at facilities of choice. Under the cate

of "Job Tasks," 31 per cent of the trainee 

ments mentioned dislike of extra non-A TC d

while 19 per cent involved criticism of workl

-within the category of "Career Characteris

33 per cent of the responses reflected disple

with being under Civil Service control, an

per cent were concerned with what the AT

felt were poor promotion opportunities. 
gpp

"likes at facinty" statements were assigned to 

the "Job Tasks" category and about 23 per cent 

were placed under the "Facilities" category (see 

Figure 1). The difference between the percentages of statements assigned to each of these two 

highest-ranked categories was statistically significant (p<.01). Next in rank order were statements categorized under "Peers" ( 15.3 per cent) 

and "Job Challenge" ( 13.8 per cent) ; both were 

mentioned significantly less often than "Job 

Tasks" and "Facilities" (p<.01), but significantly 

more often (p < .01) than "Management," (the 

next-ranked category) , which accounted for only 

5.7 per cent of the responses to this section of the 

questionnaire. None of the remaining categories 

included more than five per cent of the responses 

to this section. Comparisons readily indicate 

that the rank order of the nine categories under 

which the "likes at facility" responses were 

classified . was quite different from that established with the "likes in general" statements 

(the Spearman rho was an insignificant .14). 

Thus, these two questionnaire sections elicited 

different patterns of the positive side o:f ATC 

work. 

Of those statements categorized under "Job 

Tasks," approximately 22 per cent were concerned with the "amount of traffic," 18 per cent 

pertained to "rotation through various ATC positions" and about 17 per cent mentioned the 

variety and/or type of aircraft controlled. Of 

those statements categorized under "Facility," 

approximately 45 per cent pertained to the facility's location, 25 per cent referred to the working conditions, and about 18 per cent mentioned 

equipment. There were no clearly defined subcategories for statements relating to "Peers" or 

".Job Challenge." 

As with the analysis of the "likes in general" 

section, the "likes at facility" responses from 

the ATCSs of a given facility were generally 

very similar to those of other facilities and to 

those of the 614 ATCSs as a group (Appendix 

9). All correlations between the rank orders 

of the categories for the respective facilities and 

that established for the total ATCS group were 

7 

to this section were assigned to the "Facilitie

category; nearly 28 per cent were classified und

"Management" (Figure 1). The category co

taining the next highest number of statemen

( 15.9 per cent) , "Job Tasks," had significant

fewer statements assigned to it than either 

the two highest-ranked categories. The on

other category to receive more than 10 per ce

of the responses was "Work Schedules" wi

nearly 13 per cent; those remaining each co

tained less than 5 per cent of the statements. 

correlation of .57 (which was not significan

was obtained between the ranked categories 

responses to the "dislikes in general" and "di

likes at facility" sections, indicating that som

what different patterns of dislikes were elicite

for these two sections of. the questionnaire. 

Under "Facilities," 28 per cent of the com

plaints were centered upon equipment, 20 p

cent were directed at airport layouts, and a

additional 20 per cent mentioned working cond

tions. ·within the "Management" classificatio

quality and quantity of supervision received 

per cent of the responses, while perceived shor

ages o:f controller personnel accounted fo

another 14 per cent of these responses. Unhap

piness with ATC procedures was expressed in 4

per cent of the responses assigned to "Job Tasks

while 21 per cent of the statements so classifie

dealt with problems of handling aviation traff

of mixed types (i.e., jets and turbo-prop o

piston-engine aircraft). 

The rank ordering of response categories a

cording to frequency of statements at any give

:facility again tended to match closely the orde

for the entire ATCS group (Appendix 10). Th

lowest correlation obtained was .76 (Appendi

12). 

"PToblems, Comments, and 

Recommendations" Section 

ATOSs. Over 35 per cent of the problem

comments, and recomn'lendations cited by th

ATCSs were directed toward "Management," it

policies, or practices (see Figure 1). "Caree

Characteristics," accounted for 21.3 per cent an

ranked second, while "Facilities," with 16.5 pe
were, as previously found in regard to dislikes 

at facility" statements, quite rare. 

Only a small proportion of the responses to 

this section of the questionnaire were positive in 

nature. This was reflected in the fact that the 

rank order of the categories to which these statements were assigned correlated .87 (p<.01) with 

that based on "dislikes in general" and .72 

(p<.05) with that established for "dislikes at 

the facility," while corresponding correlations 

with the "likes in general" and with "likes at facility" were substantially lower (-.42 and .12 

respectively) and not statistically significant. 

The majority of the statements were specifically 

directed toward identification of certain problem 

areas or perceived difficulties and most of the 

comments and recommendations suggested remedial action, changes in policy, and so forth. 

The rank ordering of the categories (by percentage of statements was similar from one facility to another and from any given facility to 

the ATCS group as a whole (Appendix 11); 

Comparison of ATCSs with Trainees. A

though the trainees had fewer suggestions 

make than ATCSs, the order of the statem

categories according to the percentages of 

sponses assigned to each was generally consist

across the two groups (compare Figures 1 and 

In fact, the rank correlation between the two 

ders was .91, a clearly significant positive 

lationship (p<.01). 

Attitudes and Age 

The age of ATCSs seemed to have little ef

upon the attitudes expressed in their respon

As can be seen in Table 2, the percentages 

responses assigned to each category for ATC

over 35 and those 35 years of age or youn

were very similar within each item. The age 

35 years was used as a cutting point since 

separated the 614 ATCSs into nearly eq

groups of 316 and 298. In addition, this 

has been shown to be useful as a cutting po

for predicting success in ATC training. 

Table 2 

Percentages of categorized responses to the likes-dislikes 

sections of the questionnaire by ATCSs 35 years of age 

or younger and those 36 years of age or older 

Likes Dislikes Likes Dis likes 

in General in General at Facility at Facility 

Category Age (years) 

35 & 36 & 35 & 36 & 35 & 36 & 35 & 36 & 

younger older younger older younger older younger older 

Job Challenge 45.4 39.6 6.6 8.3 11.7 16.3 0.7 0.8 

Job Tasks 18.1 17.7 14.0 10.1 31.8 27.8 18.2 13.4 

Career Characteristics 12.4 14.4 14.2 18.9 4. 7 3.4 2.5 5.3 

Salary 9.0 13.0 9.4 6.5 3.0 3.9 1.3 0.3 

Work Schedule 4.4 4.8 20.0 22.4 3.8 3.1 11.3 13.9 

Peers 4.8 3.7 2.6 1.8 14.2 16.6 4.8 3.3 

Miscellaneous 3.0 2.8 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.4 3.1 3.8 

Facilities 2.5 3.3 9.0 8.3 23.5 21.7 29.7 32.0 

Management 0.3 0.7 23.7 23.2 5.8 5.8 28.4 27.2 

8 
Likes Dislikes Likes Dislikes 

in General in General at Facility at Facility 

Category Months of FAA-ATC Experience 

155 & 156 & 155 & 

Less More Less 

Job Challenge 44.3 41.3 7.3 

Job Tasks 18.3 17.5 13.2 

Career Characteristics 13.1 13.5 16.2 

Salary 11.2 10.6 8.7 

Work Schedule 4.1 4.9 20.6 

Peers 3.9 4.8 2.8 

Miscc 11aneous 3.6 2.3 0.3 

Facilities 1.3 4.3 7.6 

Management 0.2 0.8 23.3 

ternative age groupings were also examined, but 

in view o:f the relatively narrow age distribution 

of the ATCS sample (83 per cent were between 

ages 30 and 40 and none was younger than 27) 

little change in findings was expected or :found. 

The correlations between the ranks of the categories :for controllers older than 35 and those 35 

years of age or younger were .97 :for "likes in 

general," .95 each :for "likes at the :facility" and 

"dislikes in general," and .90 :for "dislikes at the 

:facility." There were no significant differences 

between the age group in the proportion of responses assigned to each of the nine categories. 

Attitudes and Length of FAA-ATO Experience 

As with age, tenure as an ATCS had little 

effect on the responses to the questionnaire. Using 155 months in FAA ATC work as the dividing point (again making two nearly equal 

groups of 317 and 297 ATCSs), the percentages 

of responses classified as belonging in each of 

the response categories :for . the resulting two 

groups of ATCSs were very nearly equal under 

each of the :four likes-dislikes sections (Table 3) . 

This was reflected in the lack o:f significant differences between the two experience groupings 

in the proportion of responses classified under 

9 

156 & 155 & 156 & 155 & 156 & 

More Less More Less More 

7.6 14.3 13.5 0.6 0.9 

11.3 30.6 29.5 i5.4 16.5 

16.1 3.5 4.5 3.3 4.4 

7.6 3.7 3.2 0.9 0.7 

22.3 4.2 2.7 12.0 13.1 

1.7 13.6 15.3 4.2 4.0 

0.5 1.6 1.4 3.5 3.4 

9.9 22.3 24.8 33.2 28.4 

23.0 6.4 5.1 26.9 28.5 

each response category and in the high correlations between the category orders of .98 :for "likes 

in general," .97 :for "dislikes in general," and .92 

each :for "likes at :facilities" and "dislikes at :facilities." As with age, further partition of the 

groups by experience resulted in similar findings, 

a not unexpected result since only 16 per cent 

of the ATCSs had less than 10 years of experience, and 19 controllers ( 3 per cent) had less 

than 8 years of experience. 

Attitudes and Level of Job Performance 

As participants in the general study of which 

the attitude survey was a part, each ATCS was 

evaluated with respect to level of job performance by one or two watch supervisors, by one to 

three crew chiefs under which he had worked, 

and by two to five crew members. Through use 

o:f a seven-point rating scale, each rater was 

asked to evaluate the performance of a controller 

on: (a) twenty items or technical aspects of 

Radar Control; (b) twenty technical aspects of 

Local Control; (c) nine items pertaining to geneml or non -technical attributes and (d) a single 

item reflecting the "overall proficiency of the 

controller relative to all controlers" (known by 
computed from the data submitted by each rater. 

By maintaining separateness of the rating forms 

by rating groups, mean supervisory ratings, mean 

crew chief ratings, and mean peer ratings were 

obtained for each ATCS for the separate areas 

"R," "L," "G," and "R," and for the combined 

areas "RLGR." Overall averages for each of the 

five measures were then obtained. Of the latter, 

the Overall R-Relative Rating and the Overall 

Composite RLGR Rating were selected as criterion variables for investigation of the relationships between attitudes and job performance. 

Based on an examination of the frequency 

distribution of the R-Relative Ratings, coarse 

grouping procedures were applied to establish 

three groups: ATCSs with "high" ratings of 

6.00 or better; those with mean ratings in the 

Table 

Percentages of categorized responses 

4 

to 

centages, no major differences were fou

tween the high-, intermediate-, and low

groups. The rank orders of the nine re

categories were remarkably similar to each 

and all intercorrelations (i.e., of the three 

of data) were very high; they averaged .93

same was generally true in regard to "li

facility," for which the rank-order corre

averaged .94, and also for the "dislikes i

eral" and "dislikes at facility," which y

mean intercorrelations among the groupi

.94 and .93, respectively. 

Corresponding analyses were undertake

the Overall Composite RLGR Rating. 

the ATCSs were divided into "high" (

ratings of 6.00 and above), "intermediate" 

rated 4.75 to 5.99), and "low" (those 

the likes-dislikes sections of 

the questionnaire by ATCSs who received high (6.00 and greater), 

intermediate (4.75-5.99), or low (4. 74 and lower) 

R-relative job performance ratings. 

Likes Dislikes Likes Dislikes 

in General in Genera 1 at Facility at Facili

R-Relative Job P~rformance Ratings 

Category Low Inter High Low Inter High Low Inter High Low Inter 

Job Challenge 41.0 42.8 44.4 7o7 7o8 604 16o0 12 0 1 14 08 1.1 Oo7 

Job Tasks 16o4 1802 1805 1009 12 0 8 12o6 32o4 29o0 28o3 1306 17 ol 

Career 14 o4 12 ol 14 o3 18o0 Characteristics 17 0 3 12o3 4o0 405 3o4 4o2 4 o2 

Salary 11.0 11.0 1006 707 709 8o8 3o0 4o5 1.9 009 loO 

Work Schedule 4o6 406 4o5 2503 20o6 1900 1.2 4o3 308 15o3 12o4 

Peers 4o3 5o3 209 1.6 1.8 3o5 14 o2 14 o6 18o0 4o2 308 

Misce 11aneous 3o4 2o5 302 1.3 0 Oo3 1.2 2o2 005 2o6 309 

Facilities 4o6 208 1.3 7ol 8 0 7 10o2 21.6 2300 2904 30o4 26.3 

Management 003 007 003 2004 2301 2609 6o4 5.8 4o9 27o6 3006 

10 
Likes 

in Genera 1 

Dis likes 

in General 

Likes 

at Facility 

Dis likes 

at Facility 

Over a 11 RLGR Job Proficiency Ratings 

Category Low Inter High Low Inter 

Job Challenge 41.6 40.9 45.3 7.6 7.9 

Job Tasks 17. 1 18.2 18.2 9.9 13.9 

Career 13.4 13.4 13.2 18.2 16.0 

Characteristics 

Salary 10.9 12.2 9.6 7.6 8.2 

Work Schedule 4.3 3.6 5.8 25.1 21.0 

Peers 5.0 4.4 3.8 1.3 2.1 

Miscellaneous 3.1 2.9 2.8 1.3 0 

Facilities 4.3 3.6 1.1 6.9 8.9 

Management 0.3 0.8 0.2 22.1 23.0 

4.74 and lower) groups. The percentages of 

categorized responses for each of these three proficiency levels are presented in Table 5. Comparative study of the arrays indicated no 

substantial differences among the groups. The 

averages of the rank-order correlations among 

the three performance groups were all very high. 

For both "likes in general" and "likes at facility," 

the intercorrelations averaged .96; for "dislikes 

in general" and "dislikes at facility" they averaged .94 and .97, respectively. 

Attitudes and Relative Importance of Statements 

As noted earlier, one of the methods used to 

evaluate the relative importance \vhich an individual respondent presumably attached to each 

of his statements involved the application of a 

multiplicative \veight of 1, 2, or 3 to the statement in accordance with its order in the respondent's listing of responses under each section 

of the questionnaire. However, the rank orders 

of the summary data reflecting the weighted 

and categorized statements (of the entire A TCS 

group) within each section were almost identical to those based on frequencies and percentages only. Therefore, no further analyses of 

"weighted-response" data of this type were at11 

High Low Inter High Low Inter Hig

6.6 14.1 14.2 13.2 1.1 0.4 0.

12.0 32.8 28.2 29.2 15.2 14.8 17.

14.6 3.4 4.5 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 

8.5 4.0 3.4 3.1 0.6 1.3 0.4 

19. l 2.5 3.9 3.5 29.4 31.9 30.

3.1 13.8 15.4 16.2 3.7 4.1 4.6 

0,2 1.2 1.8 1.3 2.9 3.9 3.4 

9.7 22.7 23.1 23.5 29.4 31.9 30.

26.2 5.5 5.5 6.1 28.3 28.6 26.3 

tempted because the findings would have mer

duplicated those obtained in previous analyses

The second measure of statement "importanc

was the "intensity rating" which represented 

subjective evaluation of each statement in ter

of a two-point rating scale (i.e., elaborate 

strongly worded statements were assigned a r

ing of "2" while others were rated "1"). 

might be anticipated, significantly greater pr

portions of the "dislikes" statements reflect

strong and intensive feelings than did the "like

responses (Table 6). Under the "dislikes 

general" section, over 20 per cent of the sta

ments in each category except "\Vork Schedu

and "Salary" recei,-ed intensity ratings of "

The same was true with regard to the "dislik

at facility" section with the exception of 

sponses pertaining to "\Vork Schedule," "S

ary" and "Job Tasks." None of the categor

under either of the "likes" sections showed a pr

portion of "strong" ratings as great as 20 p

cent. 

Comparison of ATOSs ~oith Tminees. Li

the ATCSs, the trainee group appeared to ha

stronger feelings associated with their stat

ments about "dislikes" than with their respons
Likes 

in General 

Category 

ATCSs Trainees 

Job Challenge 15.0 7.3 

Job Tasks 8.8 2.2 

Career Characteristics 0 5.5 

Salary 5.8 4.0 

Work Schedule 17.2 4.0 

Peers 12.7 8.1 

Miscellaneous 5.4 2.7 

Facilities 0 8.8 

Management 16.7 0 

Overall Percentage 11.5 5.4 

reflecting "likes" about ATC work (Table 6). 

However, the overall proportion of "strong" ratings differed significantly (p < .01) between the 

two groups; the ATCSs gave a greater percentage of statements reflecting strong feelings in 

both the "likes in general" and "dislikes in general" sections. 

IV. Discussion. 

ATOSs. One of the major findings of the 

present survey was the relative unanimity of 

opinion from facility to facility. What was seen 

as a problem, or as a motivating attribute, in 

ATC work by the ATCSs at a given facility was 

generally representative of the responses made 

by ATCSs at other facilities. This suggests that 

the prevailing attitudes of the 614 participants 

in this study may also be fairly representative of 

those held by ATCSs at other similar facilities. 

However, the degree to which these findings reflect motivations and the attitudes of ATC personnel at other types of installations remains a 

matter of conjecture. 

This study has clearly demonstrated that ATC 

personnel are able to describe as many positive 

Dislikes Likes Dis likes 

in General at Facility at Facilit

ATCSs Trainees ATCSs ATCSs 

38.2 36.2 14 .o 30.0 

30.4 20,9 4.7 19.4 

33.5 20_.3 9.4 32.1 

.18.4 10.5 0 18.2 

14.0 6.1 9.1 15.2 

40.7 52.9 10.6 42.8 

20.0 16.0 11.0 19.1 

21.0 14.2 9.4 21.2 

28.9 0 16.2 32.0 

26.0 15.7 9.2 24.4 

12 

as negative aspects of their profession, as 

denced by the near equality between the num

of statements made to the positive ("likes") 

to the negative ("dislikes") item. On the p

tive side, a major appeal appeared to be the c

lenging, fast-paced, constantly changing na

of ATC work. Most controllers also seem to 

the kinds of tasks which are involved in A

work, particularly those directly related to 

trol activities. Another significant factor 

peared to be the pride which they held for t

profession, which they vie\ved as having a 

siderable level of prestige. This may have b

partly a function of their falling under 

"charisma" of ayiation, but it also was a re

as some of the controllers stated, of the 

satisfaction associated with successful perfo

ance at a difficult job-a job which many pe

cannot fulfill. 

The primary dislike mentioned by A TCSs 

management. Overall, these responses seeme

reflect an attitude that management had 

unresponsive to problems, complaints, and sug

tions. However, when positive comments 

occur with respect to management, they alm
is not clear; however, it appears that many controllers believe that they are unable to communicate effectively with the individuals responsible 

£or policy-making decisions; that is, they seem 

to £eel they have little or no role in agency 

policy-making decisions. 

The other problems frequently listed, i.e., work 

schedule, career-plan deficiencies (especially in 

the area o£ retirement), annoyance with job tasks 

not directly related to control o£ air traffic, and 

distress over presumably outmoded or inadequate 

facilities, are generally self-explanatory and suggest areas which are in need o£ improvement 

£rom the ATCS point o£ view. 

Comparison of ATCSs with ATC Trainees. 

The responses o£ the trainees provide evidence 

about certain aspects o£ ATC work which serve 

as inducements to enter the profession. The 

challenge o£ the job, prestige, professional development, job security, association \vith aviation, 

and salary seem to be the most important £actors 

attracting these individuals. It is o£ special interest that these £actors continue to be viewed 

as significant positive aspects o£ ATC work after 

an appreciable amount o£ actual work experience 

with only two major changes, viz. job challenge 

assumes proportionately greater importance while 

security and opportunities to develop in responsibility tend to decline in relative importance 

(compare Figures 1 and 2). 

Similarly, specific aspects o£ ATC work which 

least appeal to the trainees are the same as those 

which experienced controllers cite as dislikes, i.e., 

management, work schedules, career characteristics, job tasks, and facilities. Dissatisfaction 

with work schedules declines somewhat in relative importance £or the ATCSs as compared with 

the trainees, while dislikes with career characteristics increase somewhat (dissatisfaction with 

promotion and retirement policies seem to account £or this rise). The relative importance 

o£ the other dislike categories does not change 

much. 

\:Vhile there was a general correspondence between ATCS and trainee attitudes, the latter 

appeared more positively oriented toward ATC 

work in that they expressed relatively £ew com13 

in the characteristics o£ individuals now bei

employed to start in the ATC profession wh

compared to ATCSs hired 10 or more years a

The extent to which this is a £actor will have 

be determined by longitudinal follow-up studi

Comparison of ATCSs with other professio

When other professions have been surveyed £

employee attitudes, several distinct £actors 

fluencing job satisfaction have emerged. In 

viewing over 16 studies o£ employee attitud

(including groups o£ engineers, housekeepers, 

countants, military officers, teachers, and ma

others), Herzberg2 3 noted that the major £act

which yielded job satisfaction in each study we

achievement, recognition, the work itsel£, respo

sibility, and growth or advancement. He a

found consistency among the sources o£ dissat

faction which included company policy and a

ministration, supervision (both technical and i

terpersonal), and working conditions. 

The similarity between the various £acto

listed by Herzberg and the findings £rom ATC

in this study is striking. The categories o£ j

challenge, job tasks, and career characterist

which ranked high among likes £or ATCSs clos

parallel the basic job satisfiers noted above £

the other professions. By the same token, t

ATCSs listed management, work schedules, a

facilities (working conditions) at the top o£ t

list o£ dislikes, which again is consistent w

the results obtained £rom other vocations.2 3 

Herzberg2 3 4 has noted, not infrequently sala

changes have been introduced in organizatio

and industries as a means o£ improving motiv

tion, and generally without any notable succe

The ATCSs and ATC trainees who participat

in this study cited "salary" relatively infr

quently as a dislike; the overall frequency o£ 

occurrence ranged £rom 0.8 to 8.1 per cent. 

£act, it was more frequently regarded as a po

tive feature (3.4-15.7 per cent). The relative

low ranking o£ salary as either a positive or 

negative £actor £or ATC personnel also agre

with the findings from other occupational group

The similarity in findings between ATCSs a

other professions is perhaps more impressi

when variations in procedures are considere

In this study, the determination o£ the categori
and others findings. The categories were deter

mined simply by inspection of the data for response trends and without reference to any other 

system of classification. Thus, the similarities in 

job satisfiers and dissatisfiers 'vas a complete 

function of the data, rather than the molding of 

judgments to fit a preconceived notion of Important factors. 

In sum, these comparisons suggest that, although air traffic control work is considerably 

dislikes are not very different in catego

from those of personnel in other professions. 

such, considerable benefit can be reaped by tho

interested in improving motivation, job attitud

and/or job performance in ATC specialties by 

examination of the approaches successfuly us

to improve these aspects of work in other indu

tries, despite differences in the nature of t

occupations. 

REFERENCES 

1. Cobb, B. B. : 'l'he Relationships of Chronological Age, 

Length of Exverien<"e, and Indices of .Job Performance for Air Houte Traffic Control Specialists. AEROSPACE l\IEDICIXE, 39 :119-124, 1968. 

:!. Herzberg, I<'.: lVork and the Xature of Man. Kew 

York, World Publishing Co., 1966. 

3. Herzberg, F.: One more time: How do you motivate 

~mployees? IIAHV AHD BUSIXESS REVIEW, 46 :fi3-

G2, 1968. 

4. Herzberg, F., B. :Hausner, and B. B. Snyderman: The 

Motivat-ion to Work. London, Chapman and Hall, 

Limited, 1959. 

14 

5. 'l'rites, D. K., and B. B. Cobb: CARl Resarch on 

Traffic Control Specialists: Age, Aptitude, and E

perience as Predictors of Performance. An non-te

nical report, Ci Yil Aeromedical Research Institu

FAA, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1964. 

G. Trites, D. K., C. l\1. Miller, and B. B. Cobb: Pr

lems in Air Traffic Management: YII. .Job and Tra

ing Performance of Air Traffic Control Speciali

Measurement, Structure, and Prediction. AER

SPACE l\IEDICIXE, 36:1131-1138, 1965. 
and experience distribution (months) for ATCSs 

Number of Number of 

Age ATCSs Trainees* Experience ATCSs 

27-99 20 

20 2 

21 3 100-109 21 

22 27 

23 56 110-119 60 

24 40 

25 51 120-129 38 

26 38 

27 2 42 130-139 59 

28 1 40 

29 9 34 140-149 65 

30 21 24 

31 59 14 150-159 87 

32 61 22 

33 53 16 160-169 58 

34 43 6 

35 67 10 170-179 32 

36 63 7 

37 45 5 180-189 63 

38 32 14 

39 45 14 190-199 48 

40 21 9 

41-45 42 18 200-249 35 

46-50 29 8 

51 or older 21 2 250-400 28 

~·~Age information was not recorded for 12 trainees 

15 
about ATC WORK AT THIS 

about ATC WORK IN GENER

Try to list your comments in rank order. First, list that which you c

most important; second, that which is next most important, etc. 

It is requested that your comments be brief. Please write legibly or 

I. Cite 3 specific aspects which you BEST LIKE about ATC work at this fac

(1st) 

(2nd) 

(3rd) 

II. Cite 3 

(1st) 

specific aspects which you LEAST LIKE about ATC work at this fa

(2nd) 

(3rd) 

III. Cite 3 specific aspects which you best like ABOUT ATC WORK IN GENERAL. 

(1st) 

(2nd) 

(3rd) 

IV. Cite 3 specific aspects which you least like ABOUT ATC WORK IN GENERAL

(1st) 

(2nd) 

(3rd) 

V. Briefly list any problem areas, recommendations or comments you desire

AC Form 9500-68 OT (7-68) Use expires 7-22-69 FAA AC 

16 
f-' 

-l 

FORM A 

PART I --- BACKGROUND DATA 

Name of ATCS (print) Facility Today's Date _______

Social Security Number Birthdale GS Grade 

YOUR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EXPERIENCE: 

yrs mos of ATC work in the -- -- FAA and/or CAA. 

___yrs ___ mos of military ATC work 

before FAA/CAA tenure. 

Branch? ______ -,--,-

____ yrs ___ mos total of combined FAACAA-military exp. 

Mo. Day Yr. 

INITIAL SELECTION: 

When applying for entry into 

FAA or CAA air traffic control 

training, were you required to 

take a written test of aptitudes 

and abilities? 

Yes No 

~UMMARY OF YOUR ATC EXPERIENCE IN THE FAA AND/OR CAA: 

!(Please provide requested data; make estimates when necessary) 

Basedon a recent normal week of your work at this facility, 

ESTIMATE THE APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF DUTY TIME you spend 

at each position or a~tivity. 

F.D. 

Mo. Da

E . 0 . D . with FAA or CAA ______

Mo. Da

AGE-AND-APTITUDE FOLLOWUP 

Did you attend the Aca

basic ATC training cou

Oklahoma City?..... 

If yes, were you a par

in an experimental pro

volving physical, med

aptitude-test measures

Ground 

Control 

Local 

Control 

Radar 

Contr

fACILITY ASSIGNMENTS OR TOURS 

Name each facility, beginning with the present and 

endinJt with your earliest. 

Total 

Months 

Each 

Tour 

Indicate (below) the number of month

facility tour during which you wer

qualified for each position or act

Dates of Assignment Please add vertically to show total of 

from to Ground Local Radar 

mo yr mo yr F.D. Control Control Contr

AC Form 9500-68 OT (7-68) Use expires 7-22-69 
00 '"""' 

Response Category 

Salary 

Work Schedule 

Facilities 

Management 

Peers 

Job Challenge 

Career 

Characteristics 

Job Tasks 

Miscellaneous 

Genera 1 Content 

Fiscal compensation 

Overtime, shift work, 

leave 

Equipment, buildings, 

location, airport layout, parking 

Policies, amount, quality, 

communications 

Co-workers' abilities 

and attitudes 

Responsibility, demanding nature of ATC \York 

Security, promotions, 

retirement, pride, 

civil service 

Procedures, extra duties, 

type of traffic, radar 

work 

All responses not otherwise classified 

Appendix 3 

Description of response categories 

"Likes in Genera 1" 

11 Pay is good" 

"l.Jork hours are 

flexible" 

"Comfortable toJorking 

quarters" 

"Management's interest 

in controller problems" 

"Typ~ of peopll~ involved 

in thl~ \Vork" 

''The challeng0 of air 

traffic control" 

"Promotion 

opportunities" 

''Working with aviation 

and radar work" 

"Enjny connnunicating 

\vith public" 

Typical Stat~mcnts 

"Dis 1 ikes in Gl~nera 1 11 

"Pay not ..:n('ugh" 

"Shift h'urk" 

"Phys ica 11 y confining, 

faulty cquipmt..•nt" 

"Fa i lur~~ of management to 

kL:cp up \Yith aviation" 

"Rc.>tcntion of unqualified 

controllers" 

"The prt.!SSurc knm11ing that 

an error can put many 

liv0s in d~1nger" 

Poor rctir..!menl" 

"I.Jork load somet imcs 

to,, heavy" 

"Public's lack of kno\vled~e about ATC \vork" 

"Likes at Facility'' 

"Sa L.1ry" 

"Fair tvork i ng 

sch~dule" 

"G~HJd t.:ork i ng 

cond it ilms" 

"l'nderstanding 

supcivisors'' 

"Thl~ crc\v I \York 

\vith" 

"ThL· \,'ork is 

cha llen):d ng" 

"Steady j(Jb--no 

layoffs" 

"RLltat {(10 dmon,o,_; 

var{,)US positions" 

"Cooperation from 

local flying interests" 

"Dislikes 

"Compens

res pons ib

"Rotating 

"Dislike 

''Poor sup

"Insince

by some" 

''Tt'rrific 

busy peri

"No prom

future" 

''Working 

coordinat

"Pilot re

to contro
Appendix 4 

Percentage of ATCSs who submitted one or more statements for 

each of the first four sections of the questionnaire 

Likes in General Likes at Facility Dislikes in General Dislike

Facility N Per Rank Per Rank Per Rank Pe

Cent Order Cent Order Cent Order Ce

A 49 90 8.5 90 9 88 7.5 9

B 42 55 17 57 17 62 16.5 6

c 32 75 13 59 16 75 12 7

D 31 71 15 77 13 74 13.5 7

E 34 94 5 91 7.5 91 4 9

F 40 98 2 93 5.5 90 5.5 9

G 22 95 4 95 3 95 2 9

...... H 33 79 12 79 11.5 85 9 8

~ 

I 28 82 9.5 82 10 79 11 8

J 58 66 16 66 15 62 16.5 6

K 28 100 1 96 2 96 1 9

L 35 91 6.5 91 7.5 83 10 9

M 38 82 9.5 79 11.5 74 13.5 7

N 32 91 6.5 94 4 88 7.5 9

0 29 90 8.5 93 5.5 90 5.5 8

p 32 97 3 97 1 94 3 10

Q 51 72 14 75 14 65 15 7

ATCS Group 614 82 82 80 8

ATCT Group 514 97 -- 72 
Appendix 5 

Percentage elicited of total possible responses to each section 

of the questionnai_re from ATCSs at each facility 

Likes in General Likes at Facility Dislikes in General Dislikes a

Facility N Per Rank Per Rank Per Rank Per 

Cent Order Cent Order Cent Order Cent 

A 49 77 7 82 4 71 7.5 75 

B 42 44 17 41 17 53 16 56 

c 32 53 16 47 16 57 12.5 75 

D 31 59 13 63 12 54 14 63 

E 34 82 4 76 10 75 4 87 

F 40 84 2 81 6 84 1 90 

G 22 83 3 80 8 73 5 92 

~ H 33 69 10 59 15 70 9.5 80 

0 

I 28 67 11.5 81 6 63 11 75 

J 58 56 14.5 61 13.5 53 16 48 

K 28 85 1 85 2 82 2 90 

L 35 76 8.5 77 9 72 6 7..4 

M 38 67 11.5 61 13.5 57 12.5 68 

N 32 76 8.5 81 6 70 9.5 91 

0 29 78 6 86 1 71 7.5 71 

p 32 81 5 84 3 76 3 86 

Q 51 56 14.5 64 11 53 16 63 

ATCS Group 614 69 70 66 74 

ATCT Group 514 93 -- 43 
Appendix 6 

Percentage of ATCSs who submitted one or more statements under the 

"Problems, Recommendations, and/or Comments" section 

Facility Total N Percent Total Number Mean 

N Responding Responding of Responses Per 

A 49 28 57 44 

B 42 24 57 45 

c 32 14 44 33 

D 31 17 55 44 

E 34 22 65 20 

F 40 28 70 29 

G 22 17 77 42 

~ 

..... H 33 19 58 22 

I 28 12 43 32 

J 58 27 47 18 

K 28 15 54 29 

L 35 19 54 23 

M 38 25 66 51 

N 32 16 so 46 

0 29 18 62 29 

p 32 24 75 35 

Q 51 23 45 32 

ATCS Group 614 350 57 574 

ATCT Group 514 6~ '· 12 76 
~ 

~ 

Facility 

A 

B 

c 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

p 

Q 

ATCS Group 

p* 

Appendix 7 

Percentage of ATCSs' "likes in general" statements classified under each of the nine response categories. 

Job Challenge Job Tasks 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

4().7 1 

53.6 1 

5.4.0 1 

41.8 1 

35.7 1 

4() .6 1 

47.3 1 

47.0 1 

37.5 1 

45.3 1 

36.6 1 

4() .0 1 

44.7 1 

48.6 1 

36.8 1 

37.2 1 

46.5 1 

42.7 1 

.01 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

17.7 2 

16.1 2.5 

24.0 2 

20.0 2 

21.4 2 

24.7 2 

18.2 2 

5.9 6 

10.7 4 

18.5 2 

23.9 2 

17.5 2 

15.8 2.5 

20.8 2 

19.1 2 

11.6 4 

15.1 3 

17.9 2 

.01 

Career 

Characteristics 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

7.1 5 

16.1 2.5 

8.0 4 

10.9 3 

15.5 3.5 

13.9 3 

10.9 3 

14.7 2 

12.4 3 

15.5 3 

11.3 3 

11.3 4 

15.8 2.5 

13.9 3 

13.2 4 

17.9 2 

17.4 2 

13.3 3 

NS 

Salary 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

12.4 3 

7.1 4 

10.0 3 

3.6 7 

15.5 3.5 

11.9 4 

9.1 4.5 

13.2 3 

16.1 2 

7.2 4 

7.0 4.5 

12.5 3 

6.6 4.5 

6.9 4 

16.2 3 

17.2 3 

9. 3 4 

11.0 4 

Response Category 

.01 

Work Schedule 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

6.2 6 

3.6 5 

2.0 5.5 

3.6 7 

1.2 8 

5.0 5 

o.o 9 

7.4 4.5 

8.9 5 

5.2 5 

7 .o 4.5 

7.5 5 

3.8 7 

1.4 7.5 

5.9 6 

5.1 6 

2.3 7 

4.6 5 

NS 

Peers 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

9.7 4 

o.o 8.5 

0,0 8 

3.6 7 

4.8 5 

2.0 6.5 

9.1 4.5 

7.4 4.5 

5.4 6 

3.1 6.5 

4.2 7.5 

0,0 8.5 

6.6 4.5 

1.4 7.5 

1.5 7 

6.4 5 

5.8 5 

4.3 6 

NS 

Miscellaneous 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

3.5 7 

1.8 b.5 

0.0 8 

9.3 4 

2.4 7 

2.0 6.5 

1.8 7 

1.5 8 

3.6 7.5 

2.1 8 

5.8 6 

5.0 7 

5.3 6 

4.2 5 

0 .o 8.5 

2.6 7 

o.o 8.5 

2.9 7 

NS 

Facilities 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

2.7 8 

1.8 6.5. 

2.0 5.5 

3.6 7 

3.6 6 

0.0 !1.5 

1.8 7 

2.9 7 

3.6 7.5 

3.1 6.5 

4.2 7.5 

6.2 6 

1.3 8 

0.0 9 

7.3 5 

1.3 8 

3.6 6 

2.8 8 

.01 

*The values represent the significance level of the differences between proportions of statements assigned to each of the adjacent categories. 
t:l 

C;.:> 

Facility 

A 

B 

c 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

p 

Q 

ATCS Group 

P* 

Appendix 8 

Percentage of ATCSs' "dislikes in general" statements classified under each of the nine response categories. 

Management 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

15.2 3.5 

26.9 

29.1 

28.0 

21.0 2 

18.8 2.5 

25.0 

36.2 

24.5 

22.8 

24.6 2 

25.0 

23.1 2 

21.2 2 

25.8 

19.2 

23.5 

23.5 

2.5 

NS 

Career 

Work Schedule Characteristics 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

15.2 3.5 

23.9 2 

18.2 2 

16.0 2.5 

28.9 1 

24.8 

18.8 2.5 

7.3 

13.2 

19.6 

31.9 

21.1 

29.2 

42.4 

12.9 

20.1 

8.6 

21.3 

6.5 

4 

2 

1 

2 

4 

6 

2 

.01 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

19.0 

13.4 3.5 

12.7 4 

10.0 5.5 

18.4 3 

18.8 2.5 

12.5 4 

13.0 2.5 

18.9 3 

17.5 

10.1 

3 

4 

15.8 3.5 

20.0 3 

6.1 6 

17.7 

19.2 

22.2 

16.1 

2 

2.5 

2 

3 

.05 

Job Tasks 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

16.2 2 

13.4 3.5 

9.1 6 

16.0 2.5 

13.2 4 

7.9 6.5 

8.3 5.5 

13.0 

20.8 

12.0 

10.1 

2.5 

2 

4 

4 

15.8 3.5 

4.6 

6.1 

16.2 

6 

6 

3 

6.8 5.5 

18.5 3 

12.3 4 

Response Category 

.01 

Facilities 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

12.4 5 

9.0 5 

12.7 4 

10.0 5.5 

5.3 6 

11.9 4 

18.8 2.5 

8.7 

5.7 

5 

4.3 7 

5.8 6.5 

3.9 

3.1 

9.1 

11.3 

6.8 

11.1 

8.7 

7.5 

3 

5 

5.5 

4 

5 

NS 

Salary 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

10.5 6 

6.0 6.5 

12.7 4 

12.0 4 

5.3 6 

8.9 5 

6.2 

11.6 4 

7.5 5.5 

10.9 5.5 

5.8 6.5 

2.6 8 

7. 7 4.5 

6.1 6 

8.1 

5.8 

6 

9.9 5 

8.1 6 

NS 

Job Challenge 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

6.7 

6.0 

5.5 

4.0 

5.3 

7.9 

8.3 

7.3 

7.5 

10.9 

10.1 

10.5 

3.1 

7.5 

4.8 

12.1 

4.9 

7.4 

6.5 

7 

6 

6.5 

5.5 

6.5 

5.5 

5.5 

4 

5 

7.5 

4 

4 

7 

.01 

Peers 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

4.8 

1.4 

0 .0 

2.0 

2.6 

0.0 

2.1 

2.9 

1.9 

2.2 

1.6 

5.3 

7.7 

0.0 

1.6 

0.0 

1.3 

2.2 

8 

8 

8 5 

8.5 

8 

9 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

6 

4.5 

8.5 

8.5 

8 

8 

.

*The values represent the significance level of the differences between proportions of statements assigned to each of the adjacent categori
~ 

Facility 

A 

B 

c 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

p 

Q 

Appendix 9 

Percentage of ATCSs' "likes at facility" statements classified under each of the nine response cat.egories. 

Job Tasks 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

38.8 1 

19.2 3 

28.9 

20.3 

33.3 2 

34.0 

34.6 

41.4 

14.9 4 

31.8 

35.2 

22.2 2 

25.7 2 

43.6 

21.3 2 

16.3 4 

32.7 

Facilities 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

13.2 2. 5 

36.9 

20.0 

15.2 4 

39.7 

18.5 3 

15.4 2.5 

24.1 2 

26.9 

29.0 2 

28.2 2 

24.7 

30 .o 

16.7 3 

25.0 

26 .o 

11.2 3 

Peers 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

13.2 

9.6 

17.8 

18.6 

5.1 

15.5 

15.4 

13.8 

22.4 

12.1 

18.3 

17.3 

18.6 

23.1 

13.3 

21.3 

9.2 

2.5 

4 

3 

2 

4 

4 

2.5 

3 

2 

4 

3 

3 

3 

2 

4 

2 

5 

Response Category 

Job Challenge 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

9.1 5 

21.0 2 

8.9 4.5 

16.9 3 

12.8 3 

19.6 2 

13.5 4 

8.6 4 

16.4 3 

14.0 3 

5.6 4.5 

11.1 5 

10 .o 4 

6,4 4 

13.3 4 

17.5 3 

26.5 2 

Career 

Management Characteristics 

Per Rank Per Rank 

Cent Order Cent Order 

5.8 6 

3.8 6 

6. 7 6 

6.8 6.5 

2.6 6.5 

3.1 6 

7. 7 5 

5.2 5.5 

7.5 5 

5.6 5 

5.6 4.5 

12.3 4 

5.7 

1.3 

13.3 4 

5.0 6 

2.0 8 

9.9 4 

3.8 6 

4.4 7.5 

13.6 5 

3.8 5 

o.o 9 

1.9 8 

0.0 8.5 

6.0 6 

2.8 6 

4.2 6 

2.5 8 

2.9 7 

0.0 8.5 

0 .o 9 

0.0 9 

10.2 4 

Salary 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

4.1 

3.8 6 

4.4 7.5 

1. 7 8 

0.0 8.5 

7.2 

5.8 6.5 

1.7 

0.0 9 

1.9 7.5 

0.0 9 

3.7 

1.4 8.5 

3.8 6 

5.3 

7.5 

4.1 6.5 

Work Schedule 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

3.3 

o.O 

8.9 

6.8 

o.o 

1.0 

5.8 

5.2 

4.5 

1.9 

1.4 

6.2 

4.3 

5.1 

6.7 

2.5 

0.0 

8 

9 

4. 5 

6.5 

8.5 

7.5 

6.5 

5.5 

7 

7.5 

7.5 

6 

6 

5 

6 

8 

9 

ATCS Group 

p1< 

29.7 23 .1 15.3 3 13.8 4 5.7 5 4.1 6 3.4 7.5 3.4 7.5 

. 01 .01 • .01 NS NS NS .01 

>'The values represent the significance level of the differences between proportions of statements assigned to each of the adjacent categories. 
to 

Ct 

Facility 

A 

B 

c 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

p 

Q 

ATCS Group 

p* 

Appendix 10 

Percentage of ATCSs' "dislikes at facilities" statements classified under each of the nine response categories. 

Facilities 

Per Rank 

Cent 0rder 

25.4 2 

12.9 2 

25.0 2 

30.5 2 

19.1 3 

31.5 

30 .o 2 

50.6 

29.0 

28.7 

27.6 2 

23.4 2 

19.5 2 

60.9 

16.1 3 

36.6 

45.4 

30.8 

NS 

Management 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

26.4 1 

60.0 

43.0 

33.9 

22.5 2 

18.5 3 

31.7 1 

13.9 3.5 

21.0 2 

24.5 3 

30.3 1 

20.5 3 

50.6 

14.7 2 

37.1 

25.6 2 

15.5 3 

27.8 2 

Job Tasks 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

9.1 4 

4.3 5.5 

16.7 3 

16.9 3 

23.6 

13.0 4 

6. 7 4.5 

13.9 3.5 

16.1 3.5 

25.5 2 

18.4 3 

15.1 4 

11.7 3 

11.5 3 

27.4 2 

15.9 3 

24.7 2 

15.9 3 

.01 .05 

Response Category 

Work Schedule 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

16.4 3 

7.1 4 

8.3 4 

5.1 5 

13.5 4 

23.1 2 

20.0 3 

15.2 2 

8.1 5 

12.8 4 

13.1 4 

28.2 

5.2 4.5 

6.9 4 

11.3 4 

11.0 4 

3.1 5.5 

12.6 4 

.01 

Peers 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

4.5 6.5 

2.8 

4.2 

6.8 4 

4.5 6.5 

5.6 6 

6.7 4.5 

3.8 5 

1.6 7.5 

3.2 6 

2.6 7 

6.4 5 

2.6 6.5 

1.1 6.5 

1.6 

8.5 5 

3.1 5.5 

4.1 5 

NS 

Career 

Characteristics Miscellaneous 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

4.5 6.5 

4.3 5.5 

1.4 6.5 

1.7 7.5 

4.5 6.5 

7.4 5 

3.3 6 

1.3 6.5 

6.5 6 

4.2 5 

3.9 5.5 

5.1 6 

5.2 4.5 

3.4 5 

1.6 

1.2 6.5 

4.1 4 

3.9 6 

NS 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

6.4 

8.6 

1.4 

3.4 

10.1 

0.9 

1.7 

0.0 

16.1 

o.o 

3.9 

1.3 

1.3 

1.1 

3.2 

1.2 

1.0 

3.4 

3 

6.5 

6 

8.5 

3.5 

8.5 

5.5 

8.5 

6.5 

5 

6.5 

8.5 

.01 

Salary 

Per Rank 

Cent Orde

3.6 

0 .0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.3 

0.0 

1.1 

0.0 

o.o 

2.6 

o.o 

1.6 

0.0 

2.1 

0.8 

8.5 

8.5 

8.5 

9 

9 

8.5 

8.5 

6.5 

9 

7 

8.5 

8.5 

6.5 

8.5 

8.5 

8 

>'<The values represent the significance level of the differences between proportions of statements assigned to eact, of the adjacent catego
1:0 

0. 

Appendix 11 

Percentage of ATCSs' "problems, comments, and recommendations" statements classified under each of the nine response categories. 

Facility 

A 

B 

c 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

p 

Q 

Career 

Management Characteristics 

Per Rank Per Rank 

Cent Order Cent Order 

21.7 2 

52.3 1 

34.8 

48.3 

33.3 1 

16.0 3 

38.0 1 

28.1 

61.1 

25.5 

40.0 

28.1 1.5 

53.3 

31.8 

38.0 1 

47.6 

20.0 2 

28.3 

29.6 2 

17.4 3 

13.9 3 

18.2 3 

29.6 

24.1 2 

22.0 3 

16.8 2 

23.5 2 

5.0 5.5 

9.5 5 

11.1 2.5 

22.9 2 

27.6 2 

14.3 3 

34.3 1 

ATCS Group 35.4 21.3 2 

P"' .01 NS 

Facilities 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

19.6 3 

4.5 4.5 

21.7 2 

24.1 2 

24.2 2 

25.0 2 

20.7 3 

25.0 2 

5.5 4.5 

17.6 3 

5.0 5.5 

28.1 1.5 

8.9 4 

4.5 6.5 

6.9 4.5 

23.8 2 

5.7 6 

16.5 3 

.01 

Response Category 

Work Schedule 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

4.3 6 

4.5 4.5 

4.3 6 

6.9 4 

6.1 5.5 

9.1 4 

6.9 4.5 

6.2 5 

5.5 4.5 

13.7 4 

30 .o 2 

12.5 3.5 

2.2 7.5 

18.2 3 

3.4 6 

2.4 6 

11.4 4.5 

8.0 4 

NS 

Job Tasks 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

10.9 5 

0.0 8 

8.8 5 

0.0 8 

12.1 4 

6.8 5 

0 0 8 

3.1 6 

11.1 3 

2.0 7.5 

10.0 3 

12.5 3.5 

11.1 2.5 

4.5 6.5 

17.2 3 

2.4 6 

17.2 3 

7.3 5 

NS 

Salary 

Per Rank 

Cent Order 

13.0 4 

0.0 8 

13.0 4 

3.4 5.5 

0.0 8 

4.5 

0.0 8 

15.6 4 

0 0 7.5 

11.8 5 

5.0 5.5 

6.2 6 

4.4 6 

4.5 6.5 

6.9 4.5 

7.1 4 

11.4 4.5 

6.6 6 

.01 

Peers Miscellaneous 

Per Rank Per Rank 

Cent Order Cent Order 

2.2 

2.3 

0 0 

3.4 

6.1 

4.5 

6.9 

0 0 

0 0 

2.0 

0 0 

3.1 

6.8 

9.1 

0 .0 

2.4 

0 .0 

3.0 

7 

6 

8 

5.5 

5.5 

4.5 

8 

7.5 

7.5 

8.5 

7 

4 

8 

6 

8 

NS 

0 0 

6.8 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

4.5 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

3.9 

5.0 

o.o 

2.2 

4.5 

0 0 

0 0 

0.0 

1.7 

8.5 

3 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

7.5 

6 

5.5 

8.5 

7.5 

6.5 

8 

8.5 

8 

8 

.01 

*The values represent the significance level of the differences between proportions of statements assigned to each of the adjacent categorie
Appendix 12 

Correlations between the rank order of response categories for each 

facility according to the percentage of statements assigned to 

each category and the rank order for the total ATCS group 

Pro

Facility Likes in General Likes at Facility Dislikes in General Dislikes at Facility & R

r J>_>'< r .2. r .2. r .2. 

-s -s -s -s 

A .91 .01 .93 .01 .86 .01 .91 .01 

B .9S .01 .83 .01 .99 .01 .76 .OS 

c .88 .01 .87 .01 .91 .01 .97 .01 

D .69 .OS .90 .01 .88 .01 .89 .01 

E .88 .01 .87 .01 .97 .01 .87 .01 

to 

-l: F .9S .01 .77 .OS .88 .01 .90 .01 

G .80 .01 .9S .01 .94 .01 .9S .01 

H .80 .01 .92 .01 .84 .01 .91 .01 

I .93 .01 .8S .01 .88 .01 .81 .01 

J .97 .01 .98 .01 .9S .01 .93 .01 

K .96 .01 .94 .01 .88 .01 .92 .01 

L .84 .01 .90 .01 .86 .01 .9S .01 

M .90 .01 .92 .01 .77 .OS .89 .01 

N .74 .OS .81 .01 .7S .OS .97 .01 

0 .87 .01 .8S .01 .9S .01 .8S .01 

p .92 .01 .70 .OS .86 .01 .97 .01 

Q .89 .01 .63 .05 .83 .01 .89 .01 

>'<.2_ - probability that the correlation would have occured by chance.